An Exegesis of Romans 9

[Jac3510]

I have been repeatedly asked to offer a commentary on Romans 9. So, I figured I would oblige. This will make for good reference material for future discussion:

Context

Before we look at this chapter, we need to note a few things concerning where Paul is in his argument. In general, the theme to the book of Romans is the power of the gospel unto salvation. In stating this, we do not mean that “salvation” refers only to that event known as justification—the point at which a person is declared righteous before God. Salvation includes, and is based on, this, but it is far broader. The concept includes salvation from the penalty of sin, from the power of sin, and from the presence of sin.

Paul had been planning a trip to Rome for some time. The church there was not founded by a particular apostle, so Paul was going to establish apostolic teaching/authority. As such, he sent this letter before him so that the church there would have a basis from which to begin.

Tracing the Argument

In chapters 1-3, Paul opens this letter by pointing out the utter sinfulness of man and his complete inability to save himself. Rene Lopez sums up this section well by labeling it “Unrighteous Humanity Suffers God's Wrath.” (Rene Lopez.Romans Unlocked. Springfield, MO: 21st Century Press, 2005. p. 28) Thus unit is concluded with “by the works of the law, no human being will be justified” (3:20).

Thus, the next unit (3:20-4:25) takes up the issue of justification by faith. It begins with the beautiful declaration that “the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law.” In other words, since man cannot be justified by the Law, God brought about a justification apart from the law. This is by faith in Jesus Christ (3:22). Paul spends this entire section defending the doctrine of grace apart from works. He uses Abraham of proof of his position, citing his faith as the basis of his declaration of righteousness (4:3; cf. Gen, 15:6). Just as Abraham was counted righteous based on belief, so will we be counted righteous based on belief (4:25).

From this point on, Paul begins to take up the implications and arguments of his position. Romans 4:25 — 8:39 compose one large unit. This break is easy to see. The words, “Therefore, since we have been justified by faith” are used to introduce this section (5:1). Our justification has caused us to have “peace with God,” through our reconciliation (5:1, 11). Based on this truth, Paul exhorts his readers to rejoice in suffering and live sanctified lives (5:3-5). So then, our peace is based on the finished work of Christ (5:15-21).

It is here that Paul picks up an imaginary objector. If we have peace with God, then should we not sin all the more, that grace is even greater? (6:1) Paul answers that we should do no such thing, but we should live sanctified lives. He exhorts his readers to “consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.” (6:11) Such is impossible if they are walking in sin! For the first time, these people are capable of living as being alive to God. They are no longer under law, which produces sin, but are under grace, which produces righteous living (6:14). They are to be, in fact, slaves to righteousness (6:15-23).

Paul furthers his argument in 7:1-6. As death releases a person from marriage, so death released these people from the Law to which they were in bondage. They were now joined to Christ, and as such, they should live for him.

Paul now picks up another objector in 7:7. This could be considered Paul's diatribe against antinomianism. Paul was not a “law hater.” The law was not sin, nor was it evil. However, the law made provision for sin. In revealing it, in made it possible, and in making it possible, sin used it to kill. (7:11). But that does not mean, again, that the law is evil. It brought death because the law is spiritual, but men are of the flesh (7:14). The flesh is now and always will be a slave to sin. It is the spirit that is alive to God. Paul uses himself to prove his case. In 7:14-25, Paul points to his own struggles with sin. While the regenerate Paul desires to serve God, the unregenerate Paul desires to serve the self. Paul begs for deliverance, and finds it in his future resurrection (7:24-25).

Given this great truth, Paul makes one of the most beautiful statements in the entire Bible: “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (8:1). Because he will be resurrected in holiness, he knows he will not come into condemnation! The Law could not set men free, but grace did, and because of that grace, men are called to live in that freedom. So long as they walk in the Spirit, they please God. So long as they walk in the flesh, they cannot please God (8:1-8). Paul then exhorts them to walk as they truly are—spiritual people (8:9-11). If they walk as such, they will be considered sons of God (8:12-17), and because of this great promise, the sufferings of the present age are rubbish. Paul makes another great promise. All of these sufferings God allows so that we may grow more and more to become like He is (8:18-25).

Given all this, Paul comes to a triumphant conclusion: “Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies.” (8:33). Therefore, because God justifies, and not man, nothing can separate us from His love! (8:37-39)

[Jac3510]

General Comments on Romans 9-11

Before we handle Romans 9 specifically, some brief comments are in order in regard to the next section as a whole. All agree that chapters 9-11 form a unit. Here, Paul answers to question, “But what about Israel?” A good portion of the Roman church would have been Jewish, and they certainly would have questions about the promises God had granted in the Old Testament. There is a general objection. If nothing can separate us from the love of God because of our election in Christ, then why could Israel be separated from God's love even though they were elected? Lopez puts the question this way:

• If God loves the elect and His promises cannot be dwarfed, how can He forget His chosen people and promises made to them from the Old Testament? In other words, have the promises of Israel been transferred to the Church and, if so, how can one be sure God's promises to New Testament believers will be fulfilled? (cf. Schreiner, Romans, 471)? (Lopez, 187; italics original)

Thus, Paul feels it is important to clarify the relationship between Israel and the Church. With this thought process in mind, Paul begins 9:1-11:36.

Verse by Verse Exegesis of Romans 9

Now that we have traced Paul's argument, we can handle this passage verse by verse to understand what it is that Paul was actually saying. The quotations below are from the ESV.

• I am speaking the truth in Christ--I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit--that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh. They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen. (1-5)

Paul starts this section with a sort of doxology. Though he is justified, many of his fellow Jews have not been. How awful, for it is they, says Paul, who are the rightful heirs to adoption, to glory, to the covenants, the law, to worship, and to the promises. God had dealt mightily with them, giving them the patriarchs and even Christ Himself. That Paul is referring to national Israel cannot be questioned.

• But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but "Through Isaac shall your offspring be named." This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. For this is what the promise said: "About this time next year I will return and Sarah shall have a son." (6-9)

Paul makes a direct claim. The word of God has not failed. How could this be, though, since the Jews, who were destined for salvation, are in fact not being saved? Paul's answer is simple: “Not all Israel is Israel.” We cannot stress enough the fact that Paul is still referring to national Israel! Just because a person is born a Jew does not mean that they are Israel, says Paul. And he proves it by citing OT precedent. Abraham, the first “Jew”, had many children, but only Isaac carried the promise of election. Thus, Paul makes a very important statement: “it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.” Again, note that Paul is not talking about the Church. He is referring to national Israel. Just because a person is born Jewish does not mean that they belong to the True Israel. Only those that God has elected belong to this group. Now, who are the elect? They are the “children of the promise.” For Abraham, the promise was of a particular son, that is, Isaac! It was not Ishmael, who was born by the will of man, but Isaac, who as born of the will of God. Paul continues:

• And not only so, but also when Rebecca had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad--in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of his call-- she was told, "The older will serve the younger." As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." (10-13)

This election by promise did not stop with Isaac. Rebecca had two sons, Jacob and Esau. Some may have objected that God's election of Isaac wasn't all that strange. So God demonstrates His sovereignty in choice by selecting Jacob, rather than Esau, to inherit the covenant. This was done before either man had done anything either good or bad, but we must also remember that election is according to (not based on) foreknowledge. In other words, God choose what God will choose because God wants to choose it. That does not necessitate, however, arbitrary choice! Further, the election was for the continuance of the covenant, so it is faulty to argue that God chose Jacob for salvation and Esau for condemnation.

Again, we must bear in mind what Paul is talking about. He is drawing up an identity for “True Israel,” which is not merely those who are physical descendants, but those of the nation of Israel that God chose to inherit the covenant. In this sense, Esau is in exactly the same boat as Ishmael or every other Gentile. He may be saved in the same way as any other, which was by trusting Yahweh, the God of True Israel.

• What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. (14-17)

At this point, some may have objected, saying that God was unjust, choosing Jacob, Isaac, and Abraham, and yet not Esau, Ishmael, or any other. Here, Paul appeals to the sovereignty of God. God can do what He pleases, especially with reference to His promises. Lopez comments further on this:

• Furthermore, these passages refer to earthly privileges and promised blessings that include eternal life. God bypassing Ishmael and Esau does not mean they cold not be eternally saved. However, those that form part of spiritual Israel, who inherit the promise of God (cf. 9:5), are the elect that also place their faith in Christ. (Lopez, 194)

Calvinists often use Paul's appeal to Pharaoh to support the doctrines, but to no avail. The text simply does not say that God chose to harden Pharaoh's heart, and that there was nothing he could do about it. Actually, the Exodus account clearly says that Pharaoh first rebelled (Ex. 5:2) and hardened his own heart (Ex. 7:13, 14. 22; 8:15, 19, 32; 9:7). It was after this that God hardened his heart (Ex. 3:19-20; 4:21; 9:12). Therefore, we can clearly see what both Paul and Moses were saying in their words, “For this very purpose I have raised you up . . .” A few comments are in order on these words.

First, the actual phrase as Paul quoted it is not found anywhere in the OT. Most likely, Paul is alluding to the verses where God says He will harden Pharaoh's heart. See Ex 4:21; 7:3; 9:12; 10:20, 27; 11:10; 14:4, 17; Deut 2:30; Josh 11:20. So we have a statement of purpose in the NT not present in the OT? Why? Very simply, God elevated Pharaoh so that He might display His glory to the Israelites. God again worked in accordance with His foreknowledge. It is simply bad exegesis, though, to say that God hardened Pharaoh against his will with no genuine chance to follow the command of God. It is important to remember that Pharaoh was a sinful man. He lived his entire life in the presence of the Jewish people, hearing of their God, but choosing to reject him. In fact, his question to Moses in Ex. 5:2 is very revealing. He says, “
"Who is the LORD, that I should obey him and let Israel go? I do not know the LORD and I will not let Israel go." (NIV) He knew WHO God was. The next ten plagues are in answer to that question!

Could God have had mercy on Pharaoh? Yes, He could have. But, He chose not to. As Pharaoh continued in his rejection of God, God used Him to declare His glory and power throughout the world!

• You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honored use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory-- even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? (19-24)

Of course, we have here another imaginary objector. If God will do what he wills, then what can man do but what God wills? Paul answers the objector with a familiar motif. The idea of the potter and clay are fairly common throughout Scripture. The idea is always the same . . . the potter will make the clay into what he wants it to be. Further, it consistently refers to national Israel. Let's keep this imagery in the context of Paul's argument. God chose certain people to inherit the Promise of the Covenant. He was not unjust in doing so, because He has mercy and compassion on the people He wants to (i.e. Jacob and Isaac). Or consider Pharaoh. This is man that God chose not to have mercy on, but hardened him in his rebellion that His glory could be known throughout the whole world.

So, then, we have a person who has rebelled. Is God unjust in using Him for a dishonorable purpose? The answer, of course, is no. Just as Israel rebelled and Pharaoh rebelled, God will have mercy on those He wishes and harden those He wishes. Everything is in accordance with the purposes of election. So, we go back to the very idea Paul is dealing with: unbelieving Israel. Can they complain to God for being made “vessels of dishonor”? The answer is no. God can do with them what He wants, but Paul goes further. He tells us that God is, and has in the past, taken these rebellious people and molded them into objects of destruction. Why? So that his objects of mercy might see His power! And who are those objects of mercy? We are.

Thus, we see the Calvinist idea that God chose some for damnation from the beginning is without exegetical basis. Those who were rebelling God actually used, and is using, to further His purposes by molding them into objects of wrath. These can not object, because God can do what He wills with them. Of course, He could grant mercy, but it is His prerogative not to. In these cases, He has chosen against it. Paul furthers his case with quotes from Hosea and Isaiah:

• As indeed he says in Hosea, "Those who were not my people I will call 'my people,' and her who was not beloved I will call 'beloved.' And in the very place where it was said to them, 'You are not my people,' there they will be called 'sons of the living God.'" And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: "Though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved, for the Lord will carry out his sentence upon the earth fully and without delay." And as Isaiah predicted, "If the Lord of hosts had not left us offspring, we would have been like Sodom and become like Gomorrah." (25-29)

These are originally found in Hos. 2:23; 1:10; Isa. 10:22-23; 1:9; and 13:19, respectively. Here, the “vessels of mercy”—both the Jew and Gentile—are shown to have been planned beforehand. Now, the quotations from Hosea both referred originally to the Assyrian invasion and exile. Thus, God said that the Jews were “not My people” and “not beloved.” And yet, to assure them that the abandonment was not permanent, God promised a future restoration so that His people would be called “sons of the living God.” Paul's use of this with reference to the Gentiles is best understood as an analogical application similar to the use of Hos. 2:23 in 1 Pet. 2:10.

Still, the general context of Rom. 9-11 forcefully reminds us that it is, in fact, Israel who is primarily the object of God's wrath. It is this reality that had, and has, caused many to think that she has forfeited her promises. Paul now quotes from Isaiah, referring again to the Assyrian invasion. Lopez points out:

• The context of Isaiah 10:6 also mentions wrath, “…the people of my wrath” which refers to Israel. Yet, God, by His mercy, intervenes and says through Isaiah that a remnant will return (10:22). Isaiah's passage does not use the Hebrew word saved . . . but “return” . . . Paul uses the term saved . . . quoted from the LXX because it exhibits the same range of meaning as the Hebrew term sub that one could translated here delivered. . . . Thereby implying the remnant will be delivered. That is, those delivered are the Jewish believers . . . that return to dwell in the land. (Lopez, 201)

Note again that the quotes from Isaiah are “concerning Israel (9:27). And thus, we see that the remnant that God would leave them would guarantee that Israel will, in fact, have her promises fulfilled, even as Isaiah predicted, as quoted by Paul.

• What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, as it is written,
  
  "Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense;
  and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame."

Here, Paul begins a new section on the causes, effects, and implications of Israel's unbelief. It is sufficient to point out here that Israel stumbled and fell because they pursued righteousness by works of the Law, which, as Paul had made clear in chapters 1-3, could not result in life. However, there will be a future for Israel in which her remnant will pursue righteousness by faith, and to that generation, the promises will be fulfilled.

Conclusion

Needless to say, this is only introductory material as it relates to the entire unit. But, it is sufficiently shown that the Calvinist interpretation is incorrect simply because it does not recognize that national Israel is in view rather than the individual Jew or Gentile.

God bless

[FFC]

Needless to say, this is only introductory material as it relates to the entire unit. But, it is sufficiently shown that the Calvinist interpretation is incorrect simply because it does not recognize that national Israel is in view rather than the individual Jew or Gentile.

Very good, Jac! Now where is that clapping hands emoticon?

[led]

A M E N!!!!

clap - clap - clap - clap - clap - clap

[meforevidence]

Notice the Pharoah was evil to begin with. God never turns one good or evil.

I believe the key verse for this context is vs 22 where it states "How do we know that God was not longsuffering (patient, forbearing) with these people before he finally decided to use the vessel of dishonor to honor himself and the vessels of honor?" (Paraphrased)

Siniticus: 22 But if God—willing to show his wrath, and to make known his power, endured in much longsuffering vessels of wrath fitted for destruction,
23 also that he might make known the riches of his glory on vessels of mercy, which he before prepared for glory?

Dr. Lamsa Peshitta vs. 22: Now then, if God wanted to show his anger and make his power known, would He not then, AFTER THE ABUNDANCE OF HIS PATIENCE, bring wrath upon the vessels of wrath which were ready for destruction?

(CEV) 22God wanted to show his anger and reveal his power against everyone who deserved to be destroyed. But instead, he patiently put up with them. 23He did this by showing how glorious he is when he has pity on the people he has chosen to share in his glory. 24Whether Jews or Gentiles, we are those chosen ones, 25just as the Lord says in the book of Hosea,


The above verses show that God was patient with these people and "longsuffering" but that they chose not to serve God and so God used them as a vessel of dishonor. God wills that all be saved but some choose not to serve Him as a vessel of honor and so God will use them as a vessel of dishonor.

[puritan lad]

A better title would have been "A BAD Exegesis of Romans 9". I'm disappointed Jac. I was expecting something new.

Actually, I am in complete agreement with this up to this phrase, where it falls apart.

If God loves the elect and His promises cannot be dwarfed, how can He forget His chosen people and promises made to them from the Old Testament? In other words, have the promises of Israel been transferred to the Church and, if so, how can one be sure God's promises to New Testament believers will be fulfilled? (cf. Schreiner, Romans, 471)? (Lopez, 187; italics original).

You're explanation, rather than clear this up, adds to the confusion.

“Paul makes a direct claim. The word of God has not failed. How could this be, though, since the Jews, who were destined for salvation, are in fact not being saved? Paul's answer is simple: “Not all Israel is Israel.” We cannot stress enough the fact that Paul is still referring to national Israel! Just because a person is born a Jew does not mean that they are Israel, says Paul. And he proves it by citing OT precedent. Abraham, the first “Jew”, had many children, but only Isaac carried the promise of election. Thus, Paul makes a very important statement: “it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.” Again, note that Paul is not talking about the Church. He is referring to national Israel. Just because a person is born Jewish does not mean that they belong to the True Israel. Only those that God has elected belong to this group. Now, who are the elect? They are the “children of the promise.””

On one hand, we agree that “just because a person is born a Jew does not mean that they are Israel”. You then correctly state that “Just because a person is born Jewish does not mean that they belong to the True Israel. Only those that God has elected belong to this group. Now, who are the elect? They are the “children of the promise.” However, you contradict yourself by saying that “We cannot stress enough the fact that Paul is still referring to national Israel!” Well, which is it, Jac? Is National Israel (a person whose born Jewish) part of True Israel or not? Who are the elected to the True Israel?

Lopes, like other Dispensationalists, miss the entire point of “Israel” in the passage. Those who were addressing Paul were wondering, as you correctly observe, whether or not God had abandoned Israel. Paul's point was that He hasn't. True “Israel” doesn't not consist of “those who are the children of the flesh” (Earthly Israel) (Romans 9:8). Paul clearly states that, “these are not the children of God”. God never, even in the OT, chose anyone based on ethnicity. God is not a racist. The entire NT is adamant on that fact. THE CHURCH IS THE TRUE ISRAEL. Paul is referring to the His Sovereignty in Election. (In fact, the Greek Word for “Church” literally means “the elect ones”.)

The Judaists bragged to Jesus about their heritage, proclaiming “Abraham is our father.” (John 8:39). But Jesus was very clear with His response. Contrary to popular dispensational belief, Judaism is not “Old Testament religion”, but a demon-inspired, Talmudic cult. When the Pharisees rejected Christ, they rejected Moses (John 5:46). The god of Judaism is the Devil (John 8:44). Only Born Again believers in Jesus Christ are considered true Jews. Others are not true Jews, but of the synagogue of Satan (Rev. 2:9). As Christ rejecters, they are no longer “God's Chosen People”. Jesus told them,"… the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it.” (Matthew 21:43). This nation is His “holy nation”, the Church of Jesus Christ, the new “Israel of God”, and the Galatian church was so called (Galatians 6:16).

Paul writes “…for they are not all Israel who are of Israel” (Romans 9:6), “But he is a Jew who is one inwardly, and whose circumcision is that of the heart…” (Romans 2:29). “And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:29). In Christ, all ethnic, cultural, economic and generational walls have been removed. “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28). If Jesus Christ removed these barriers, who are we to try and build them back up?

There is more. While the modern dispensational church keeps it's eyes glued to the Middle East, awaiting some sort of Theological Extravaganza, Paul clarified that the Abrahamic Covenant (Genesis 22:18) is being fulfilled through the church, (and the Galatian Gentile church at that). “And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, "In you all the nations shall be blessed.” (Galatians 3:8 - So much for the idea that the church age was invisible to the Old Testament prophets.) As Christians, we are members of the New, Heavenly Jerusalem which is the one and only bride of Christ, the mother of us all (Galatians 4:26, Hebrews 12:22).

If God's Covenant Blessings were for National Israel, as you suggest, then what about Esau? Ishmael? King Saul? The Pharisees? Judas Iscariot? Were they “vessels of honor, prepared for glory beforehand? What about Rahab (an accursed Canaanite)? Ruth (an accursed Moabite)? Urriah the Hittite? They were true “Jews”, according to Exodus 12:48-49.

Once you get the correct identity of Israel, you'll go along way toward straightening out your theology. Your bad exegesis in the opening part of this thesis makes the rest of it bad as well. You write, “the election was for the continuance of the covenant, so it is faulty to argue that God chose Jacob for salvation and Esau for condemnation.” Esau was compared to “a vessel of wrath, prepared for destruction”. I would say that it is correct that “God chose Jacob for salvation and Esau for condemnation”.

Then, Lopez's argument begins to border on the ridiculous. Assuming you quoted this correctly. Please explain what he means by this:

“Furthermore, these passages refer to earthly privileges and promised blessings that include eternal life.”

Since when is eternal life an “earthly blessing”? If that is the case, then God failed to keep His promise. As we currently speak, Jacob is just as dead as Esau.

People have a problem with God hating Esau. It is because they view humanity as good enough to deserve to be saved. However, once man understands his total depravity, this isn't so hard to accept. The real mystery isn't that God hated Esau. The real mystery is that God loves Jacob.

Calvinists often use Paul's appeal to Pharaoh to support the doctrines, but to no avail. The text simply does not say that God chose to harden Pharaoh's heart, and that there was nothing he could do about it. Actually, the Exodus account clearly says that Pharaoh first rebelled (Ex. 5:2) and hardened his own heart (Ex. 7:13, 14. 22; 8:15, 19, 32; 9:7). It was after this that God hardened his heart (Ex. 3:19-20; 4:21; 9:12). Therefore, we can clearly see what both Paul and Moses were saying in their words, “For this very purpose I have raised you up . . .”

First of all, if, as you say, Paul was still referring to “National Israel” (though it is obvious that he wasn't), then why bring up Pharoah all? Did anyone in the Roman church honestly think that Pharoah was part of National Israel? Was it really necessary for Paul to straighten this out?

Secondly, Exodus 3 comes before Exodus 7, but that is beside the point. What do the Scriptures tell us about Pharoah? Your bad exegesis continues. You write concerning Pharoah, “He lived his entire life in the presence of the Jewish people, hearing of their God, but choosing to reject him.” There is no evidence to support this statement. The verse you quoted says just the opposite of what you claim.

“In fact, his question to Moses in Ex. 5:2 is very revealing. He says, “
"Who is the LORD, that I should obey him and let Israel go? I do not know the LORD and I will not let Israel go." (NIV) He knew WHO God was.”

On what basis do you claim that “He knew WHO God was”? You certainly could not have arrived to that conclusion based on the passage you quoted. Why did Pharoah ask “Who is the Lord?” He clearly stated that “I do not know the Lord”.

Furthermore, if your exegesis is correct, than why would Paul address the question of “"Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?"”. If what you say is true, then Paul's addressing this question would have been most unnecessary. (In fact, this is the very objection that “free-willers” present to Calvinists. Go Figure.)

Could Pharoah have repented despite God hardening his heart? No.

meforevidence writes, “Notice the Pharoah was evil to begin with”. So what? So was I. So was Paul. So was every person who was ever conceived. (Psalm 51:5, Psalm 58:3, Romans 3:10-11)

Paul was the chief of sinners. Why was he saved and not Pharoah? Why did God not harden Paul's heart like He did Pharoah's? (I would argue that Paul's sin was much worse than Pharoah's.) The answer: “Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens."

The Scriptures plainly state that God hardened Pharoah's heart, so that He could lay His hand on (judge) Egypt.

Exodus 7:3-4
“And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and multiply My signs and My wonders in the land of Egypt. But Pharaoh will not heed you, so that I may lay My hand on Egypt and bring My armies and My people, the children of Israel, out of the land of Egypt by great judgments.”

It does not say that God “allowed” Pharoah's heart to be hardened. It says that God hardened it (and it says it on several occasions). Yet, Pharoah was responsible for his wickedness. The Scriptures tell us that Pharoah hardened his own heart. But that doesn't answer the most important question. Could Pharoah have repented and overcome God's hardening of His heart? How?

Proverbs 21:1
“The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD, Like the rivers of water; He turns it wherever He wishes.”

The text, once again, is not ambiguous, but very clear. If Pharoah had repented, then Pharoah, not God, would have received credit to the freedom of Israel from bondage. This is why God raised Pharoah, for this very purpose.

Romans 9:17-18
“For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth." Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.”

This is not hard to understand, just hard for many Christians to accept. They love the concept of “free-will” salvation more than the Word of God. God created Pharoah so that He could destroy him and show His power in the deliverance of His people.

Proverbs 16:4
“The LORD has made all for Himself, Yes, even the wicked for the day of doom.”

As John Newton used to say, “…the Lord must have loved me before I was born, or else He would not have seen anything in me to love afterwards.”

Everything is in accordance with the purposes of election. So, we go back to the very idea Paul is dealing with: unbelieving Israel. Can they complain to God for being made “vessels of dishonor”? The answer is no. God can do with them what He wants,

Whoa Jac. You almost sound like a Calvinist here. So you conclude that God can make “vessels of wrath, prepared for destruction” as long as the vessel is of National Israel? Since when was Pharoah (the subject of Paul's answer here) a part of National Israel?

The argument that this entire passage refers to “National Israel” is as old as Dispensationalism (less than 200 years), but it holds no water. Romans 9:10-24, if taken at face value, destroys the myth of "free will" salvation.

[Jac3510]

On one hand, we agree that “just because a person is born a Jew does not mean that they are Israel”. You then correctly state that “Just because a person is born Jewish does not mean that they belong to the True Israel. Only those that God has elected belong to this group. Now, who are the elect? They are the “children of the promise.” However, you contradict yourself by saying that “We cannot stress enough the fact that Paul is still referring to national Israel!” Well, which is it, Jac? Is National Israel (a person whose born Jewish) part of True Israel or not? Who are the elected to the True Israel?

Chronology is important in an argument, so be sure not to mix up major and minor points. My primary point in exegesis came early on and remained throughout the passage: national Israel is always in view. ALWAYS. Unless the text clearly says otherwise, Paul makes it clear he is discussing that entity.

Who are the "children of the promise"? You, of course, would say that we are, but I disagree. When the "children of the promise" comes up, what is Paul talking about in the context? The verses in question are 8 and 9, which read:

• This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. For this is what the promise said: "About this time next year I will return and Sarah shall have a son."

Ishmael was not a child of the promise. Isaac was. In the same way, Esau was not the child of the promise, but Jacob was. Both of these are physical descendants. In other words, the promise is granted to Abraham and his descendants, but not all his descendants. It is then granted to Isaac and his descendants, but not all his descendants. It is then granted to Jacob and his descendants, but not all HIS descendants! Thus, who are the children of the promise? They are those of NATIONAL ISRAEL who will inherent the Abrahamic Covenant.

We are not children of the promise. We are objects of mercy (v. 23), but that is an entirely different matter. In fact, we are not the sole objects of His mercy. The Jewish remnant--the children of the promise--will be objects of mercy as well. There is no basis in this passage for saying that the Church is of the promise. Paul has only Israel in view in 9-11. As all agree that national Israel is in view early on, the burden of proof lies on the one who believe Paul has changed focus.

To take things further, this idea fits better with broader Pauline theology. The church has been "grafted in" in Romans 11:11-21. Again, notice that this is still part of the Israel unit. We can put things very simply this way: Israel doesn't need the Church for its salvation, but the Church needs Israel for its salvation. Why? Because salvation is rooted in the Abrahamic Covenant, which is granted to the Children of the Promise, which is to the elect group of National Israel.

Lopes, like other Dispensationalists, miss the entire point of “Israel” in the passage. Those who were addressing Paul were wondering, as you correctly observe, whether or not God had abandoned Israel. Paul's point was that He hasn't. True “Israel” doesn't not consist of “those who are the children of the flesh” (Earthly Israel) (Romans 9:8). Paul clearly states that, “these are not the children of God”. God never, even in the OT, chose anyone based on ethnicity. God is not a racist. The entire NT is adamant on that fact. THE CHURCH IS THE TRUE ISRAEL. Paul is referring to the His Sovereignty in Election. (In fact, the Greek Word for “Church” literally means “the elect ones”.)

You see where you put "earthly Israel" above? That's where you are off. You have no basis for that in this text. The key is in verses six and seven:

• For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham's children.

Israel is being lost, but Paul says that's OK, because only the non-elect part of Israel is being lost. EVERYONE who is in Israel isn't really Israel. Thus, the "all", "nor" contrast. The way you have to read this is "The Church is Israel, so some of the physical descendants are of national Israel, so not all of national Israel is True Israel." But, you've introduced an idea that Paul is not talking about in this passage at all. He is referring to national Israel, as he plainly states. He couldn't make this any clearer by tracing the history of NATIONAL Israel. If Paul really thought that the Church was True Israel, he could have answered the agreed upon objection very easily: "No, but the Church is the True Israel, so Israel has not been rejected, because God will not reject His Church." And yet, Paul seems to go to great lengths to avoid such language!

As for the "God is not a racist" comment, that's an old argument that really shouldn't hold any stock. God told Isaac that he and HIS DESCENDANTS would inherit the promise. God dealt specially with Israel throughout the OT. They were the "apple of his eye."

Actually, to be honest, I would really like to read a Covenant theologian's attempt to put together a systematic Israelology.

Contrary to popular dispensational belief, Judaism is not “Old Testament religion”, but a demon-inspired, Talmudic cult.

This I agree with, as does every other dispensationalist I know. I suspect there were some in the early days who didn't recognize this yet, but I can't think of any off the top of my head. Hal Lindsey, maybe?

Christ rejecters, they are no longer “God's Chosen People”. Jesus told them,"… the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it.”

This, though, I disagree with, and to be honest, I don't see how your theology lets you hold to it either. A couple of questions for you:

1. If Israel could lose her election by rejecting her Messiah, why couldn't the Church?
2. If men don't have free will, and if God knows everything, then wasn't the rejection of Christ by the Jews appointed by God? If so, in what sense were they ever "elect"?

As for your mentioning of the "kingdom of God," we'll have to put that off for another day. It has no bearing on my personal exegesis, because I have a totally different concept than you do on the matter. You can't attack my ideas from your belief system. You have to weigh what I'm saying on my own grounds.

Paul writes “…for they are not all Israel who are of Israel” (Romans 9:6), “But he is a Jew who is one inwardly, and whose circumcision is that of the heart…” (Romans 2:29). “And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:29). In Christ, all ethnic, cultural, economic and generational walls have been removed. “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28). If Jesus Christ removed these barriers, who are we to try and build them back up?

Yes, in Christ, there is no barriers, but that is a soteriological statement, not an eschatological one. As for a man being a Jew if he is one inwardly, that only applies to Jews, not Christians. Sorry, PL . . . you aren't a Jew . My basis for that is Rom, 2:17. There, Paul picks up the line of thought that develops into the statement you provided. He says, "Now you, if you call yourself a Jew; if you rely on the law and brag about your relationship to God . . ." and if you follow that paragraph, the whole thing is about circumcision and the law, etc. And as part of the broader context, this is in the part of the book where Paul is declaring the sinfulness of ALL men. He deals with the Gentiles in 1:18-32. He then deals with the Jews in 2:1-29. In fact, this comparison is confirmed by Paul's next statement in 3:1, "What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision?"

So, only Jews can be "true Jews", which further supports my argument that the "children of the promise" are elect Jews from National Israel. Finally, you mentioned Gal. 3:29. Yes, we, Gentiles, are heirs to (not children of) the promise, but the context is soteriological, not eschatological. (see v. 28).

Allow me to make a theological distinction for those others who are reading this. There is, in my view, a difference in an Elect Jew (True Jew) and a Jew who is part of the Church, and thus Elect. The former is an eschatological situation that deals with the Abrahamic Covenant. The latter is soteriological and deals with salvation. Today, Jews must be saved the same way we are. They always have been and always will be. But there are no "True Jews" in the eschatological sense today. These will be a part of the Remnant that will surface during the Tribulation. This may help make that clear: what are the promises involved in the Abrahamic Covenant? Chief among them is the land promise, so it serves as a good illustration. The "Children of the Promise" are those who will receive the land. Esau nor Ishmael was part of that group. Neither were those in Jesus' day, because they rejected Him. But, in the Last Day, the believing Jew will be the elected Jew, and he will inherit the promise, as per the discussion we are having.

There is more. While the modern dispensational church keeps it's eyes glued to the Middle East, awaiting some sort of Theological Extravaganza, Paul clarified that the Abrahamic Covenant (Genesis 22:18) is being fulfilled through the church, (and the Galatian Gentile church at that). “And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, "In you all the nations shall be blessed.” (Galatians 3:8 - So much for the idea that the church age was invisible to the Old Testament prophets.) As Christians, we are members of the New, Heavenly Jerusalem which is the one and only bride of Christ, the mother of us all (Galatians 4:26, Hebrews 12:22).

We are certainly blessed by the Abrahamic Covenant. That was one of the stipulations. But it is worth noting that the Church is not found in the Abrahamic Covenant. Scripture clearly taught that the Gentiles would be justifed by faith. But it also taught that the JEWS would be justified by faith. Thus, ALL the families of the earth, not JUST the Jews, would be blessed through Abraham and his physical descendants.

If God's Covenant Blessings were for National Israel, as you suggest, then what about Esau? Ishmael? King Saul? The Pharisees? Judas Iscariot? Were they “vessels of honor, prepared for glory beforehand? What about Rahab (an accursed Canaanite)? Ruth (an accursed Moabite)? Urriah the Hittite? They were true “Jews”, according to Exodus 12:48-49.

Esau and Ishmael were not part of the covenant because they weren't elected. That doesn't mean they weren't saved. You are having trouble distinguishing between eschatological and soteriological promises. Just because a person wasn't part of the Covenant didn't mean they couldn't be saved, Puritan. There were GENTILES who were saved in the OT, not because they were Jews, but because they had faith in the Jewish God. Thus, in Abraham, we see all the families of the earth being blessed even in the OT times.

Once you get the correct identity of Israel, you'll go along way toward straightening out your theology. Your bad exegesis in the opening part of this thesis makes the rest of it bad as well. You write, “the election was for the continuance of the covenant, so it is faulty to argue that God chose Jacob for salvation and Esau for condemnation.” Esau was compared to “a vessel of wrath, prepared for destruction”. I would say that it is correct that “God chose Jacob for salvation and Esau for condemnation”.

Editorializing doesn't get anybody anywhere, PL. And you can say that God chose Jacob for salvation and Esau for condemnation if you like, but you won't find that clearly stated in Scripture. What you will find is that Jacob was chosen for an eschatological promise and Esau was passed over. Esau could have been saved had he trusted Yahweh.

Since when is eternal life an “earthly blessing”? If that is the case, then God failed to keep His promise. As we currently speak, Jacob is just as dead as Esau.

Really? Then why does Jesus say, "'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob' ? He is not the God of the dead but of the living" (Matt. 22:32)

Eternal life is an earthly blessing. That is one of the things that Christians have wrong, you know. This idea that we are going to go to Heaven and spend eternity there is simply wrong. We will spend 1000 years on earth with Christ, and then we will spend eternity on the New Earth. Earthly, everlasting life.

People have a problem with God hating Esau. It is because they view humanity as good enough to deserve to be saved. However, once man understands his total depravity, this isn't so hard to accept. The real mystery isn't that God hated Esau. The real mystery is that God loves Jacob.

I don't have any problem with God hating Esau. It doesn't refer to "hate" in the sense of despise . . . it's not like when I say, "Oh, I HATE that guy!" It is an idiomatic expression (and a common one at that) for loving less than something else. I love this, then I hate that. See, for example, Gen, 29:30-31; Matt 6:24; Luke 14:26; John 12:25.

Do you hate your mother, Puritan Lad? Jesus says that you have to, doesn't He? It's the same idea here.

First of all, if, as you say, Paul was still referring to “National Israel” (though it is obvious that he wasn't), then why bring up Pharoah all? Did anyone in the Roman church honestly think that Pharoah was part of National Israel? Was it really necessary for Paul to straighten this out?

Secondly, Exodus 3 comes before Exodus 7, but that is beside the point. What do the Scriptures tell us about Pharoah? Your bad exegesis continues. You write concerning Pharoah, “He lived his entire life in the presence of the Jewish people, hearing of their God, but choosing to reject him.” There is no evidence to support this statement. The verse you quoted says just the opposite of what you claim.

Why bother bringing up Pharaoh? Because he makes the point Paul is driving at . . . the Jews had rejected Christ and as such were being made objets of wrath. God had the right to do that. He made Pharaoh an object of wrath. That wasn't so hard.

As for Pharaoh, do you really believe that he had no idea who Yahweh was? He had this MASSIVE slave crew who were praying for deliverance, and he had no idea who there God was? When they were crying out in oppression, you don't think their complaints never reached his ears? In any case, Pharaoh proves the case himself in 5:2, ". . . I do not know the LORD . . . " Now, in Semitic thought (and Greek, for that matter), what does it mean to "know" someone?

You've got a pretty big burden of proof on you here, PL.

Furthermore, if your exegesis is correct, than why would Paul address the question of “"Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?"”. If what you say is true, then Paul's addressing this question would have been most unnecessary. (In fact, this is the very objection that “free-willers” present to Calvinists. Go Figure.)

Why would the question be unnecessary? God will have mercy and compassion on those whom He will. Israel rebelled, and God chose not to have mercy, but to instead mold them into objects of wrath, just as He did the Pharaoh. Now, what does it mean to MOLD something into an object of wrath, and how is that done? It is done by hardening the person or people. So, God was hardening Israel . . . this began in the Pharisees days and continued through Paul's, and extends even into today. So, the person says, "But if God is the one hardening their hearts, why does He still find fault? If He has the power to grant them mercy and soften their hearts, shouldn't He do that?" Thus, Paul gives His answer. The question is entirely necessary, and not surprisingly, it has nothing to do with the Calvinistic approach.

Paul was the chief of sinners. Why was he saved and not Pharoah? Why did God not harden Paul's heart like He did Pharoah's? (I would argue that Paul's sin was much worse than Pharoah's.) The answer: “Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens."

You are proving my point. Could God have hardened Paul's heart? Sure. Could He have had compassion on Pharaoh? Sure. But, this is what He chose to do, so it is what He did. But this has nothing to do with a person's ability to believe. In both of these cases, Saul and Pharaoh rejected God before God saved and hardened them, respectively.

Whoa Jac. You almost sound like a Calvinist here. So you conclude that God can make “vessels of wrath, prepared for destruction” as long as the vessel is of National Israel? Since when was Pharoah (the subject of Paul's answer here) a part of National Israel?

I told you I agree a lot with Calvinist reasoning. You just have your presuppositions off (i.e., Church = Israel). But, as for your particular question, seriously, read me a little slower, PL. What did I say:

Still, the general context of Rom. 9-11 forcefully reminds us that it is, in fact, Israel who is primarily the object of God's wrath.

Notice the bolded word. I didn't say that every object of wrath was a part of national Israel. I said that in Rom. 9-11, Paul is showing how the unelect portion of National Israel is being molded as an object of wrath. The Pharaoh serves as a good EXAMPLE.

God bless

[puritan lad]

Jac,

An answer to your questions:

If Israel could lose her election by rejecting her Messiah, why couldn't the Church?

Your still missing the point Jac. Israel (the Church) has not lost her election, nor ever will. God never intended, even in the Old Testament, to elect a fleshly nation, but a Holy nation. True, it was primarily made up of Hebrews in the OT. The church and Israel are/were one and the same. Paul's message here is to identify the true Israel, and to show that God's promises to Israel are being fulfilled.

If men don't have free will, and if God knows everything, then wasn't the rejection of Christ by the Jews appointed by God? If so, in what sense were they ever "elect"?

Yes (Psalm 33:10-12). See above for explanation. King Saul was an Israelite but was not elect. Ruth was an accursed Moabite, and was elect. (Both OT).

I don't have any problem with God hating Esau. It doesn't refer to "hate" in the sense of despise . . . it's not like when I say, "Oh, I HATE that guy!" It is an idiomatic expression (and a common one at that) for loving less than something else. I love this, then I hate that. See, for example, Gen, 29:30-31; Matt 6:24; Luke 14:26; John 12:25.

Do you hate your mother, Puritan Lad? Jesus says that you have to, doesn't He? It's the same idea here.

Many have suggested that the meaning of “hate” actually means to “love less”. This is a matter of semantics that I won't bother to debate. Does it really matter? Esau is compared to a “vessel of wrath prepared for destruction”. Esau is currently burning in the fires of Hell. It is no comfort to him whatsoever to tell him that “God didn't really hate you, He just love you less than Jacob”. Whatever.

I love my mother Jac. However, I love my Jesus more for what He did for me. If my mother would do anything (she wouldn't) that would have a negative impact on my “Pilgrim's Progress”, then, in a comparative way, it would be hate. (I would have to leave her behind and press toward the mark). Thankfully, we can walk there together, so it isn't an issue.

As far as using the passage to describe “earthly blessings” vs. eternal life and damnation, the issue is pretty much settled by Verses 22-24.

"What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?"

The burden of proof is on you Jac. This passage is clearly about God's Sovereignty in election (both Jews and Gentiles). Some vessels are prepared for glory, others for destruction (Proverbs 16:4). In both cases, the potter has power over the clay. The "National Israel/Earthly Blessings" theory is a copout.

[Jac3510]

Your still missing the point Jac. Israel (the Church) has not lost her election, nor ever will. God never intended, even in the Old Testament, to elect a fleshly nation, but a Holy nation. True, it was primarily made up of Hebrews in the OT. The church and Israel are/were one and the same. Paul's message here is to identify the true Israel, and to show that God's promises to Israel are being fulfilled.

No, I've not missed the point. You are making an unsupported assertion/assumption that I don't accept and are arguing from that premise, namely, that the OT National Israel (the elect portion) = the Church. You have to get that from the text, not import it ito the text. Needless to say, you haven't. Further, my exegesis makes no such assumption and is consistent--moreso than yours, I would argue. However, until you can prove the above assertion, it has absolutely zero bearing on our discussion. I know it is what you believe, but it doesn't matter what our thoughts are. It matters what Scripture says.

Yes (Psalm 33:10-12). See above for explanation. King Saul was an Israelite but was not elect. Ruth was an accursed Moabite, and was elect. (Both OT).

This is a useless line of thought. You agree that God ordained the Jews to reject Christ. You agree that unbelief is a sin. Therefore, God chose for certain Jews to sin. That makes Him the author of sin. You respond that God is not the author of sin and that we have no right to judge God, as per the very passage we are debating. I claim your argument is circular. You claim it isn't. The other side of this line of thought is inconsistent. If God isn't a racist, as you understand the term, then why is the OT "Church" made up of primarily Jews but the NT Church made up primarily of Gentiles. You respond with something relating to the time of the Jews and the time of the Gentiles, which I in turn says contradicts your premise of racial distinction. You say it doesn't, and we leave it up to the readers to decide who is right. Moving on . . .

Many have suggested that the meaning of “hate” actually means to “love less”. This is a matter of semantics that I won't bother to debate. Does it really matter? Esau is compared to a “vessel of wrath prepared for destruction”. Esau is currently burning in the fires of Hell. It is no comfort to him whatsoever to tell him that “God didn't really hate you, He just love you less than Jacob”. Whatever.

Yes, "many" have suggested it, and yet you said in your previous reply, "People have a problem with God hating Esau. It is because they view humanity as good enough to deserve to be saved. However, once man understands his total depravity, this isn't so hard to accept. The real mystery isn't that God hated Esau. The real mystery is that God loves Jacob." So, which is it, PL? Did you mean that only people who aren't aware of the position I've advocated have a problem with it? Or did you mean that people have a problem with the Calvinist understanding of "hate" (in which case, my response is . . . so what?)? Or were you simply trying to score some debate points?

So, thanks for the admission. "Many" do hold the position. It is well understood. It is a common understanding because it is the correct one. You ask if it matters. Of course it matters. I hope the question is rhetorical and not honest. This has to do, as hinted at above, with your very presuppositions. If "hate" is idiomatic, then your entire argument is moot. If "hate" is to be taken in the sense you prefer, then my entire argument is moot.

You say that Esau is in Hell. Maybe he is . . . but that doesn't change my argument. Note what I already said on this: "Esau and Ishmael were not part of the covenant because they weren't elected. That doesn't mean they weren't saved. You are having trouble distinguishing between eschatological and soteriological promises. Just because a person wasn't part of the Covenant didn't mean they couldn't be saved, Puritan. There were GENTILES who were saved in the OT, not because they were Jews, but because they had faith in the Jewish God. Thus, in Abraham, we see all the families of the earth being blessed even in the OT times."

I'm hoping that your underlying assumptions are becoming clear to both you and our readers. You assume that "elect" means saved. You read that INTO the text, and thus, you have your interpretation. I have no such assumption. I walked verse by verse and stuck with Paul's line of thought. I don't assume that the elect are or are not saved. I don't assume that those who are not elect are or are not saved. If Paul wants to say as much, he will. It's too bad for your position that he does not. As my exegesis clearly demonstrates, Paul is talking about National Israel's rejection of their Messiah in connection with what it means to their promises in the OT. It's up to you to demonstrate where your assumptions come from, PL.

I love my mother Jac. However, I love my Jesus more for what He did for me. If my mother would do anything (she wouldn't) that would have a negative impact on my “Pilgrim's Progress”, then, in a comparative way, it would be hate. (I would have to leave her behind and press toward the mark). Thankfully, we can walk there together, so it isn't an issue.

Yes, of course you love her. And "leaving her behind" would be "in a comparative way . . . hate." You have to hold that view, just like I do, because Jesus Himself told us as much in Luke 14:26. So, we both agree that you don't think terribly of her. You don't have a burning, negative emotion toward her. And yet, you insist on importing such a view of "hate" on God in this passage? Again, it is about your assumptions, PL. The view of "hate" I'm advocating comes directly from the text itself. Throughout this passage, God is talking about who He chooses. Thus, to choose one and not another is to hate one and love another (cf. Matt. 6:24).

As far as using the passage to describe “earthly blessings” vs. eternal life and damnation, the issue is pretty much settled by Verses 22-24.

"What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?"

The burden of proof is on you Jac. This passage is clearly about God's Sovereignty in election (both Jews and Gentiles). Some vessels are prepared for glory, others for destruction (Proverbs 16:4). In both cases, the potter has power over the clay. The "National Israel/Earthly Blessings" theory is a copout.

*sigh* I already dealt with this in my original post when I said:

So, then, we have a person who has rebelled. Is God unjust in using Him for a dishonorable purpose? The answer, of course, is no. Just as Israel rebelled and Pharaoh rebelled, God will have mercy on those He wishes and harden those He wishes. Everything is in accordance with the purposes of election. So, we go back to the very idea Paul is dealing with: unbelieving Israel. Can they complain to God for being made “vessels of dishonor”? The answer is no. God can do with them what He wants, but Paul goes further. He tells us that God is, and has in the past, taken these rebellious people and molded them into objects of destruction. Why? So that his objects of mercy might see His power! And who are those objects of mercy? We are.

Thus, we see the Calvinist idea that God chose some for damnation from the beginning is without exegetical basis. Those who were rebelling God actually used, and is using, to further His purposes by molding them into objects of wrath. These can not object, because God can do what He wills with them. Of course, He could grant mercy, but it is His prerogative not to. In these cases, He has chosen against it.

This is far from a "copout", PL. In fact, as noted previously, you actually furthered my point on this. Note this exchange:

Paul was the chief of sinners. Why was he saved and not Pharoah? Why did God not harden Paul's heart like He did Pharoah's? (I would argue that Paul's sin was much worse than Pharoah's.) The answer: “Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens."

You are proving my point. Could God have hardened Paul's heart? Sure. Could He have had compassion on Pharaoh? Sure. But, this is what He chose to do, so it is what He did. But this has nothing to do with a person's ability to believe. In both of these cases, Saul and Pharaoh rejected God before God saved and hardened them, respectively.

Now, if the purpose of this reply of yours was to answer my questions, you should go back through and reread my last reply, as there were a good many of them that you missed.

With that said, let me continue in pointing out one more assumption that you are making in this entire interpretive process that is not warranted by the text. The key statement in this passage is "Not all Israel is Israel." More clearly, Paul is saying, "Not all National Israel is True Israel." Now, this can be read in two ways: either "True Israel" is a greater entity which is made up, in part, of some of the national Israelites, or "True Israel" is a smaller entity which is composed of an elect portion of the national Israelites. You assume the former without apparent cause. I, the latter, for this reason:

Is Paul "expanding" election throughout this passage or "narrowing" it? If the former, then you are right, for the elect would not be limited only to national Israelites, but to a wider group of which they are a part. If the latter, then I am right, for the elect would be limited only to a portion of national Israelites. Yet it is clear that, throughout this passage, God is narrowing the pool. You have Abraham at the head. Between Ishmael and his children and Isaac and his children, we limit this only to the latter. Now, we have Jacob and his children and Esau and his children. God limits the election to the former. We now have the twelve tribes, and among them, some are elect. Some are not. Thus, Paul says, "Is Israel losing it's blessing? No, because not everyone born of Jacob is elect, just as not everyone born of Isaac or Abraham are elect!"

Now, the key question: is this election unto belief? The answer is no. The idea is absolutely NOT found in this passage. You have to import it in from elsewhere. As noted previously, you are confusing soteriological promises with eschatological promises. This entire passage is eschatological. Thus, that is the context. "Election" is not unto salvation but in who receives the Covenant Blessings. It is true that those who are to receive the blessings will believe. I have no problem with that. But that does not say that ALL who believe will receive the blessings. That, my friend, is what we call a non sequitur. And, thus, we see your primary assumption in this entire debate is fallacious.

Therefore, based on the text in this passage, I hold that election is a "narrowing" of the pool. Thus, I hold that "All Israel is not Israel" refers to a narrowing, not expanding, process. The latter is made up of a portion of the former. As the former is only National Israel, thus the latter must be made up of a portion--an elect portion--of national Israel. As you trace this argument out, you see it fits perfectly with both chapters 10 and 11, with special reference to 11:11-32, which is the climax of the argument.

God bless

[puritan lad]

No, I've not missed the point. You are making an unsupported assertion/assumption that I don't accept and are arguing from that premise, namely, that the OT National Israel (the elect portion) = the Church.

This view is completely consistent with the Bible as a whole.

Galatians 3:29
“And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.”

What promise Jac? Earthly Blessings of National Israel? If so, I must have missed that one

See Also:

Galatians 3:8
Matthew 3:7-10
John 8:37-44
Galatians 6:16
Romans 2:29
Galatians 4:26
Hebrews 12:22

That should suffice for now. God's people, His “Israel” is His church, and always has been. It is up to you to show that God's has two different sets of “covenant blessings”, one for Jew and one for Gentile.

Yes, "many" have suggested it, and yet you said in your previous reply, "People have a problem with God hating Esau. It is because they view humanity as good enough to deserve to be saved. However, once man understands his total depravity, this isn't so hard to accept. The real mystery isn't that God hated Esau. The real mystery is that God loves Jacob." So, which is it, PL? Did you mean that only people who aren't aware of the position I've advocated have a problem with it? Or did you mean that people have a problem with the Calvinist understanding of "hate" (in which case, my response is . . . so what?)? Or were you simply trying to score some debate points?

The point is that God did not love Esau enough to save him. Furthermore, God's hatred for Esau was based on nothing that Esau did or ever would do. The exact meaning of hate is not relevant. It's just an attempt by you to take the focus off of God's unconditional election clearly pointed out in this passage.

You say that Esau is in Hell. Maybe he is . . . but that doesn't change my argument. Note what I already said on this: "Esau and Ishmael were not part of the covenant because they weren't elected. That doesn't mean they weren't saved. You are having trouble distinguishing between eschatological and soteriological promises.

No. It is you who has to invent different types of “Salvation” to make your theology work. You can stand the fact that God, from the beginning, has chosen us to salvation, and that He made the wicked for the day of Destruction.

Just because a person wasn't part of the Covenant didn't mean they couldn't be saved, Puritan. There were GENTILES who were saved in the OT, not because they were Jews, but because they had faith in the Jewish God. Thus, in Abraham, we see all the families of the earth being blessed even in the OT times."

The Gentiles in the Old Testament had to become Jews (Exodus 12:48-49). See above...

I'm hoping that your underlying assumptions are becoming clear to both you and our readers. You assume that "elect" means saved. You read that INTO the text, and thus, you have your interpretation. I have no such assumption. I walked verse by verse and stuck with Paul's line of thought. I don't assume that the elect are or are not saved. I don't assume that those who are not elect are or are not saved. If Paul wants to say as much, he will. It's too bad for your position that he does not. As my exegesis clearly demonstrates, Paul is talking about National Israel's rejection of their Messiah in connection with what it means to their promises in the OT. It's up to you to demonstrate where your assumptions come from, PL.

Jac, this is ridiculous. Of course the elect are for salvation (and there is only one kind of salvation that matters). You state that in Romans 9:20-23, “God chose certain people to inherit the Promise of the Covenant.” I agree. What are the promises of the Covenant? Paul clearly spells out that “desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory”. Any 5th grader can tell what Paul means here Jac. God desired to “show His wrath and make his power known”. He “endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction” (What destruction Jac?) so that He could “make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory”. This text is clear and unambiguous. To interpret this as “earthly blessings” for “National Israel” is ridiculous. And you accuse me of reading into the text? I just take it for what it says. I love the God who sits on His throne. Many do not.

So, then, we have a person who has rebelled. Is God unjust in using Him for a dishonorable purpose? The answer, of course, is no. Just as Israel rebelled and Pharaoh rebelled, God will have mercy on those He wishes and harden those He wishes. Everything is in accordance with the purposes of election. So, we go back to the very idea Paul is dealing with: unbelieving Israel. Can they complain to God for being made “vessels of dishonor”? The answer is no. God can do with them what He wants, but Paul goes further. He tells us that God is, and has in the past, taken these rebellious people and molded them into objects of destruction. Why? So that his objects of mercy might see His power! And who are those objects of mercy? We are.

Thus, we see the Calvinist idea that God chose some for damnation from the beginning is without exegetical basis. Those who were rebelling God actually used, and is using, to further His purposes by molding them into objects of wrath. These can not object, because God can do what He wills with them. Of course, He could grant mercy, but it is His prerogative not to. In these cases, He has chosen against it.

So God's purpose depends on us? What if those rebelling against God used their “free will” to not do so? Does God's purpose have to be altered to accomodate those who use their "free will" to choose to be "in Christ"? I guess God becomes wiser over time, eh?

What if Judas had used his “free will” to not betray Christ? What if the Pharisees had been able to “turn and be saved” despite the fact that Jesus purposely denied them that ability (Matthew 13:14-16)? What if Pilate had decided to let Jesus go and punish Barabbas? What would have happened to God's purpose, in this case, His plan of Salvation? Fortunately, they were “disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed.” (1 Peter 2:8). Wow. Those nasty Calvinists words like "appointed" are everywhere.

God's will does not depend on man, ever?

God “foreknows” nothing contingently. To suggest otherwise is to subtract from him both His Omniscience and His Omnipotence. To suggest that God predestines based on a foreknowledge of our actions is to suggest that God could not act until He “learned” something about us. Thus you have a god who “gets wiser” as time goes forward.

Of course, God did foreknow our actions, but that is because He predestined them.

Psalm 139:16
“…And in Your book they all were written, The days fashioned for me, When as yet there were none of them.”

The analogy of the potter and the clay is easy to understand. The potter makes what He wants out of the clay. The clay has no say in the matter.

[YLTYLT]

Jac, Let me see if I understand what you are saying. It sounds like something interesting thought to do more research on. I may have missed something cause I did not read everything through the whole thread. I have also done some interpolation based on other verses.

1. That the term "elect" is referring to Israel, but only the portion of Israel that brought forth the lineage of Christ.

2. The promises to be inherited belong to the this group.

3. The saved Gentiles and saved non-elect Israel will be adopted into this family and therefore also receive these promises. (interpolated from Gal 4:3-7)


Galatians 4
3Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world:

4But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

5To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

6And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.

7Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.

[Jac3510]

No, I've not missed the point. You are making an unsupported assertion/assumption that I don't accept and are arguing from that premise, namely, that the OT National Israel (the elect portion) = the Church.

This view is completely consistent with the Bible as a whole.

Galatians 3:29
“And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.”

What promise Jac? Earthly Blessings of National Israel? If so, I must have missed that one

See Also:
.
.
.
That should suffice for now. God's people, His “Israel” is His church, and always has been. It is up to you to show that God's has two different sets of “covenant blessings”, one for Jew and one for Gentile.

This time you missed the point. Your assertions are not supported IN THIS TEXT. Tell me, PL, what the actual definition of eisogesis is? Is it not reading into the text an idea not found in it? Yes, our theology has to be in line with the rest of Scripture, but the circularity in your reasoning is hilarious. Throughout our debates, you continually refer me to Romans 9 as you great proof text. All five points of Calvinism are here, you boldly proclaim! And yet, here you are appealing to other Scriptures to support your interpretation?!? It's as bad as the evolutionist's "the leaf dates the rock and the rock dates the leaf."

Now, we could do a verse by verse analysis of each of the passages you provided, but we won't in THIS thread for two reasons. First, we are dealing with an exegesis of Romans 9. Unless you are going to tell me that Paul is intelligible here without the rest of his writings, then the ideas come from THIS text. We check our interpretation against other Scripture. We don't GET our interpretation from other Scripture. Secondly, even if I were to explain each of the verses one by one (many I already have), you'd just appeal back to Romans 9, and we come back to the same circular argument.

In other words, PL, I've provided an exegesis built on this passage and this passage alone, and it is consistent with the rest of Scripture. If you have a problem with it, you have to show where in the context of this passage, I have made an error. You can't without appealing to your understanding from other Scripture, which I would hold you have mistaken. So, if you are willing to concede that you can't refute the position I'm advocating without going to other Scripture, then I suppose you can concede that Romans 9 isn't your great proof text, after all. We can close this thread and open a new one on other passages. If I am wrong in my understanding of the passages there, then clearly, my exegesis of this passage goes against Scripture and is thus mistaken. If, though, I am right in those passages, then it is you who are mistaken here. Regardless, Romans 9 is not the proof text you thought it to be, contrary to your claims.

So what do you say, Puritan? Can you prove your position from this passage alone or do you have to appeal to other Scripture?

The point is that God did not love Esau enough to save him. Furthermore, God's hatred for Esau was based on nothing that Esau did or ever would do. The exact meaning of hate is not relevant. It's just an attempt by you to take the focus off of God's unconditional election clearly pointed out in this passage.

That's the point, hmm? Yes, well, that's a fine assertion . . . it's an assertion based on the underlying assertion that "the exact meaning of hate is not relevant." I thought you held a higher regard for Scripture? Of course it matters what the word, means, PL. If the word "hate" is with reference to choice, as I have clearly demonstrated both precedence and preference for, then your argument is entirely moot. In fact, the entire notion of unconditonal election is BUILT on your understanding of "hate." Now, since the entire context of this passage is who God chose would inheret the covenantal blessings, it seems to me the we should understand "hate" exactly as I have suggested; it is a matter of who God chose.

No. It is you who has to invent different types of “Salvation” to make your theology work. You can stand the fact that God, from the beginning, has chosen us to salvation, and that He made the wicked for the day of Destruction.

Wait, wait, wait . . . time out. I thought this was all totally old stuff, PL? I thought none of this was new. After all, you said, "I'm disappointed Jac. I was expecting something new." How can I "invent" things if I've provided nothing new?

Now, I suppose that for you, James 5:15 refers to "final salvation?" It says, "and the prayer offered in faith will restore the one who is sick." (NASB) Are you aware that word "will restore" is sozo? It's the same word used in 1:21; 2:14; 4:12; and 5:20.

It's just silly to say that there is only one kind of salvation in the Bible. That's not even a good Calvinist argument. I keep referring to my Greek prof. because he's an ardent 5 pointer, and he'd come down pretty hard on you here. He wrote his dissertation on the word "salvation" in Mark, and found more than a few uses, only one of which was spiritual salvation.

So, point refuted: there ARE different types of salvation in the Bible.

Now, the beauty here is that salvation isn't even an issue in my exegesis. A better argument on your part would have been that there are two types of ELECTION in my view (and there are). There is the election of the Church, and there is the election of Israel. But guess what? There are yet other types of election. There is the election of certain people to perform certain tasks. There is the election of certain times to do certain things. Your problem, as I discussed in the Predestination thread, is that you've equated all types of election as the same. That is called a fallacy of equivocation. Sorry, PL, but this text clearly teaches the election of those to receive the covenant, NOT the election unto salvation.

The Gentiles in the Old Testament had to become Jews (Exodus 12:48-49). See above...

I thought the Mosaic Law didn't save, PL? Your OT soteriology is a bit off here. In fact, such a claim is contrary to your own theology. You will insist that there is only one way to be saved and this way has been precisely the same way from Adam until the Return of Christ. And yet, Abraham didn't have to "become a Jew." Noah didn't have to "become a Jew." So, I guess the "gospel message" changed? Salvation apparently is by works in the OT?

Of course, none of this comes from the passage at hand. You simply assert, based on God knows what, that Esau was elected to condemnation and Jacob was elected to salvation, even though I've presented another alternative that better fits the rest of the context of chapters 9-11, and the book as a whole.

BTW, question: did the people of Nineveh (the Book of Jonah) go to Hell, PL? Because Jon. 2:5 says, "Then the people of Nineveh believed in God; and they called a fast and put on sackcloth from the greatest to the least of them." Maybe this "salvation" that they found was just God's not killing them off. They still went to Hell, though, right? Because they didn't become Jews. I don't see any reference to them being circumcised, but I do see reference to God relenting and not destroying them (Jon. 3:10; 4:11). Of course, if there is only ONE type of salvation . . .

Jac, this is ridiculous. Of course the elect are for salvation (and there is only one kind of salvation that matters). You state that in Romans 9:20-23, “God chose certain people to inherit the Promise of the Covenant.” I agree. What are the promises of the Covenant? Paul clearly spells out that “desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory”. Any 5th grader can tell what Paul means here Jac. God desired to “show His wrath and make his power known”. He “endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction” (What destruction Jac?) so that He could “make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory”. This text is clear and unambiguous. To interpret this as “earthly blessings” for “National Israel” is ridiculous. And you accuse me of reading into the text? I just take it for what it says. I love the God who sits on His throne. Many do not.

Ah, you asked the key question: "What are the promises of the Covenant?" Your reading is pretty laughable . . . Paul doesn't spell out what the promises are. Those are spelled out in Genesis 12:1-3. By way of extention, these Covenant promises include the Palestinian, Davidic, and New Covenants. And they will be realized in the Millennial Kingdom. Now, the passage in question is 20-23. Paul's not giving any explanation here, PL. He is answering an objection, as I clearly explained in my OP. To redefine "the promise" as "election unto salvation" based on this passage is really, really funny. I didn't know Paul had the power to change God's promises!

I won't exegete the passage again. Walk through my previous analysis of these verses. Some of Israel is elected to receive the promises of the covenants. These will receive the promises in the next age. In the meantime, the non-elect will be destroyed. We are only talking about national Israel here . . . you can't principalize this and make it refer to everyone. That's just outside of the context.

PL, you have to recognize that we are dealing, especially in this unit of Romans, with the OT concept of election. It is NOT the same as the NT concept of election. The former is a national election; the latter is particular election. The former is for eschatological blessings. The latter is for salvation.

So God's purpose depends on us? What if those rebelling against God used their “free will” to not do so? Does God's purpose have to be altered to accomodate those who use their "free will" to choose to be "in Christ"? I guess God becomes wiser over time, eh?

What if Judas had used his “free will” to not betray Christ? What if the Pharisees had been able to “turn and be saved” despite the fact that Jesus purposely denied them that ability (Matthew 13:14-16)? What if Pilate had decided to let Jesus go and punish Barabbas? What would have happened to God's purpose, in this case, His plan of Salvation? Fortunately, they were “disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed.” (1 Peter 2:8). Wow. Those nasty Calvinists words like "appointed" are everywhere.
.
.
.
(etc.)

I've already talked about this.

1) Your response was to a quote from the original exegesis. I note that there is no argument with reference to the actual interpretation, only to extrapolations from my interpretation. That's not exegesis, PL. Try again.

2) God's purposes are not dependant on us. However, election is in accordance with foreknowledge. It cannot be logically based on it, however, as you cannot base A on a non-existent B. If B is our actions, and A is God's election, then election cannot be rooted in our actions. However, that doesn't mean that God doesn't elect in accordance with foreknowledge. That doesn't mean that men don't have free will. That doesn't mean that God hasn't decreed from the beginning what the end will be.

Anyway, if you want to continue with this line of questioning, you'll have to open another thread, because it is going to go off in several different directions, including the relationship between man's will and God's sovereignty, the relationship between election and foreknowledge, the definition of foreknowledge, etc. While all of these are important issues, they are secondary. We don't interpret based on our theology. We interpret, and then we get our theology. Exegesis first. Systemization later. Even your friend Vos recognized that.

Again, I have absolutely no problem discussing it. It's not at all difficult, and if you really think that I've not got an answer for your arguments, you've obviously not been following our discussions. However, if you notice the above arguments are, again, rooted in Scriptures other than Rom. 9. So, I refer you to the first part of this post. We deal with Rom. 9 here, unless you want to concede that my interpretation is valid. In which case, we need to move on and you need to answer the myriad of problems I've presented as to why yours is not valid, considering the context. Key among all this is the clear idea of a narrowing election, whereas you propose an expanding election. It just doesn't fit the context, man . . .

God bless

[Jac3510]

Jac, Let me see if I understand what you are saying. It sounds like something interesting thought to do more research on. I may have missed something cause I did not read everything through the whole thread. I have also done some interpolation based on other verses.

1. That the term "elect" is referring to Israel, but only the portion of Israel that brought forth the lineage of Christ.

2. The promises to be inherited belong to the this group.

3. The saved Gentiles and saved non-elect Israel will be adopted into this family and therefore also receive these promises. (interpolated from Gal 4:3-7)


Galatians 4
3Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world:

4But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

5To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

6And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.

7Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.

Hey YLT . . . I think I'd be OK in the big picture with what you are saying, but let me point out some of the verbage that I'd change:

1. It's not just "the line of Christ" that inherits the covenants. This is proven by the simple fact that all twelve brothers were elect, and only Judah is of the physical line. Rather, we are dealing with the faithful portion of Israel that God chose for the purpose of receiving the Covenants He promised. Certainly, this would include the physical line, but it is also broader than that.

2. I absolutely agree.

3. There are a good many in my camp that would hold that view, and I can respect it, though I don't hold to it myself. Gal. 4, in my understanding, is soteriological in nature. The Abrahamic Covenant and its derivaties are eschatological, NOT SALVIC, in nature. Notice especially the first person plural pronoun in that verse. This is, then, with reference to the Church, and thus, cannot include OT Gentile saints.

I've said this before: Israel does not need the Church for her salvation. It is guaranteed by God Himself through His promise to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Individuals may be saved or lost, but the nation herself will live and reign. She was and is God's chosen people.

However, the Church DOES need Israel for her salvation. If we can do a thought experiment, I contend that if national Israel were to be totally wiped out, and NO Jews existed anymore, then the Church neither would nor could be saved on the last day. Our salvation is rooted in Israel's. It is BECAUSE Israel will be saved on the last day that we will also be. We are blessed of their overflow. Salvation always was, is, and will be first to the Jew and then to the Gentile. It is first to Israel, and then to the Church.

Well . . . that's my view, anyway. Some of that comes from this unit, some of it from elsewhere. If you want to discuss in in detail, we can make a thread about it, or you can PM/email me.

God bless

[LowlyOne]

The Bubba Club Broken
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An Atomistic Exegesis of Romans 9
By James Patrick Holding

Seeing as how certain Calvinist alpha males and their junior apes have chosen to make monkeys of themselves responding to our material, it seemed judicious to provide what they think is not present, and hoist their own rug of "exegesis" out from under them. The following is our exegesis of Romans 9 in "bubba club" format -- showing that it does not support the Calvinist view, and melds hand in glove with the scholarship we have been consulting for the subject. This is a draft that will be added to as we avail ourselves of further resources.

It should be understood that Romans 9 is a piece with the rest of Romans, and of course derives more meaning from its full epistalory context.

1 I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost, 2That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. 3For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: 4Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; 5Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

As an introduction to his next argument set, Paul begins with some personal words -- rhetorical pathos as it were -- indicating his depth of sorrow for his fellow Judeans. From the beginning it must be understood that Romans is prssented to a mixed audience of converted Jews and converted Gentiles (and also perhaps, non-Christian Jews, if Mark Nanos is correct; but it would make no difference to our arguments). A primary factor in Paul's presentation will be addressing two or more groups that are supposed to be unified in Christ, and addressing them as a unity, while also respecting their collective identities as separate groups. Paul walks a tightrope in Romans 9 in which he walks between the objections of multiple groups. Although Calvinist commentators like White (TPF, 205) are correct in seeing that Paul is answering the question, "If the Jews are the covenant people, why do they reject the Gospel?" the dynamics of the situation are far more complex. Paul is also entering a situation in which he seeks "the reduction and elimination of conflict between groups through recategorizing two (or more) groups in conflict under a new common subgroup identity." (Esler, Conflict and Identity in Romans, 271). The collectivist mind of the ancient would continue to cherish its embedded identities for the present; remember that Paul and the Apostles are still trying to teach converts the lesson that there is "neither male nor female" nor any other identity that supersedes identity in Christ (as even Peter, an apostle himself, had yet to learn fully in Antioch).

In Galatians, Paul took a very stern tone with the Galatians in trying to teach them this lesson. But Rome is a church he has not visited, apparently, and the dictates of honor require that he must tread more lightly with the Romans. It will not do to offend their sensibilities with such a direct statement as "there is no Jew or Gentile". So rather than attack such a notion directly, like a Malcolm X, he undermines it subtly, like a Martin Luther King (as he does in Romans 3:29-30: "Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also: Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.") As Esler puts it: "...a precondition to a successful process of recategorization is that no attempt be made to extinguish the two subgroups, since this might lead to countervailing efforts by their members to maintain their distinctive identities in a way that would render the establishment of a new common identity difficult, if not impossible." [ibid.] In this respect it is rightly said that the theological and social are inseperable in this letter; Calvinists neglect the latter at the expense of the former.

Paul is in fact addressing several potential objections:

"If the Jews are covenant people, why do the majority reject the Gospel?" As noted, this question is rightly identified by White and others as germane. But there is more even to this question:

"If the Jews are condemned for rejecting Christ, how do you explain that they remain in power in Judaea with Roman blessing even now, that their religion thrives, that they possess this beautiful Temple?" This critical component is neglected by Calvinist commentators like White, who look back through the lens of post-70 AD events, and fail to realize that at the time Paul writes (c. 45-50), these very serious and immediate questions were a prima facie case against Christianity. The fate of a nation was an important signal of its favor with its "home court" deity. Jews could hardly accept that God had abandoned them as long as their Judean government remained in power (even with Roman watchcare) and as long as the Temple remained standing. Thus Paul is between two points diametrically opposed: He must walk the line between acknowledging that the Jews did have God's blessing in the past (for otherwise, he implies that God has erred in blessing Israel previously) and showing that they no longer have it, but the body of Christ does -- in spite of what evidence exists in his world in that day to the contrary.

Finally, Paul must also tend to the potential objection that the failure of Jews to believe was a reason to reject and condemn Israel as a body -- not on a theological level, but on a social level; Paul must also counter the tendency for Gentiles (in this day of strong ethnic prejudices) to use Israel's rejection of the Gospel as a reason for personally rejecting non-Christian Jews. He is also likely confronting the question, "If the Jews are the covenant people but they have rejected their messiah, doesn't the fact that they will perish in the coming day of the Lord, meaning that God has rejected his people (cf. Jeremiah 31:37)?"

One of the most relevant covenant promises to Israel in this regard is a command, found in Deut. 18:15-18, for Israel to be on the lookout for and listen to a prophet that God will send them. The "Prophet" like unto Moses is to be understood as Jesus, a mediator of a new covenant for all men; the command given is to hearken unto this prophet. It therefore stands to reason that disobedience of this command, to hearken unto this prophet, is a cause for punishment. Thus if Jewish adherents to the Deuteronimic covenant fail to hearken unto Jesus, they are disobeying and breaking the covenant just as much as they would had they worshipped an idol, or murdered, or stolen. Thus the covenant with the Jews is eternal, and even now would still be in effect; but a Jew who did not listen to Jesus would be in violation of the covenant

[LowlyOne]

6Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

In light of the above, a key objection answered by Paul: "Israel" does not mean ethnic identity, as would be assumed by the people of his time. (Morris, 352, cites from Sanh. 10:1 the statement, "All Israelites have a share in the world to come.") On this Calvinist commentators remains true to the text; but we have not yet entered into where we find they deviate from Paul's meaning.

7Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. 8That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. 9For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son.

Paul appeals to a "probability" or an example from the past that verifies the truth of the present. Ishmael was an ethnic descendant of Abraham, fully eligible by law of the day for the blessings of the covenant with YHWH. Thus there is precedent as well for modern ethnic descendants of Abraham to be rejected, and not merely accepted on an ethnic (group membership) basis. This sort of precedent would be a convincing form of forensic proof for an ancient reader.

TPF agrees with this point, and thus ironically performs the very social science scholarship its author has rejected in our exchange. But then it goes rather too far in an effort to secure its preferred interpretation. "Two truths" are taken from these three verses.

* "...God determined who was, and who was not, a child of promise." That is so, but the obvious intent of TPF is to pull from this some rhetorical support for the Calvinist doctrine of election. There is none; no criteria is stated for how or why God made the determination, or at what point (in the primarily causal, ideal pre-existence of Isaac and Ishmael?).

* "...Paul is speaking of the salvation of individuals." This is a false step. While Paul uses this "probability" as an illustration which can by extension bear some relevance on issues of salvation, the salvation-status of Ishmael is never discussed (contrary to Piper, Pip.JG, 43). Indeed, since he was circumcised (Gen. 17:26; yet Piper amazingly believes that opponents of Paul could argue that Ishmael was excluded from the covenant, and thereby creates a "loophole" that Paul needs to answer!) it is arguable that he entered into a covenant relationship with YHWH and could have been saved as were the other OT saints; but nothing is said of this by Paul one way or the other. As Morris [353] puts it, "This does not mean that Ishmael and Esau were necessarily excluded from the covenant; it was God's command that they receive circumcision, the sign of the covenant (Gen. 17:9-13; cf. vv. 23, 26). They were not excluded from the mercy of God and both received blessing." Cranfield [2/475] likewise: "So we must not read into Paul's argument any suggestion that Ishmael, because he is not chosen to play a positive part in the accomplishment of God's special purpose, is therefore excluded from the embrace of God's mercy." So if this passage is about salvation of individuals as White claims, it would tend to prove some sort of universalism at worst, which we are sure White does not want to claim! (Moo [576n] acknowledges this, even as a Calvinist, but responds with a non-answer: "But the text Paul quotes focuses, as we have seen, on the clear distinction drawn in Genesis between Isaac and Ishmael in terms of the covenant. Isaac is the heir who recives and through whom are transmitted the spiritual blessings of the covenant." But all Moo does here is reverese his accusation against those like Cranfield and Morris whom he claims "minimize the spiritual implications" -- Moo in turn merely tries to maximize the spiritual implications, and in so doing, passes right by the better answer, that "salvation of individuals" isn't Paul's subject.)

Again, as yet, Paul is not concerned with "salvation" -- he is merely addressing the specific point that ethnic identity is no guarantee of fulfillment of promise of any sort (not salvation in particular); by expansion one may say as well, nothing about a person guarantees that God will give them something -- and this meaning, from the point of view of men (more on this shortly). The covenant promise to Isaac was about land and blessing in this life -- the soteriological aspects of the promise (the Temple cultus) would not be presented for many years yet. Thus at most it would only be right to say that "Paul is talking about salvation" in the sense that it would be right to say that someone saying, "the animals of the world are glorious" is "talking about badgers" -- we have something that shows us that God is in charge of setting the rules, and presumably, He does so in all settings, not just this one. But none of this tells us what exactly the rules are for anything beyond covenant membership, and the particular negative, "ethnic idendity isn't". Moo [571] does rightly rejects the idea that Paul "is implying nothing about the salvation of individuals" (emphasis added) but the Calvinist goes too far in thinking that Paul is saying everything and all that can be said about the salvation of individuals. Indeed, "implication" is really all that CAN be derived from Paul about this subject here, and Calvinists fill in the rest based on assumption. Edwards' commentary on Romans [231-2] puts it this way: "What role, if any, Ishmael, for example, played in God's broader economy we do not know, though we are told that God blessed and cared for him (Gen. 16:10-14; 17-20; 21:13-21)." And: "In the present context Paul is not discussing the eternal salvation of individuals, but God's purposeful choices in history from Abraham to Christ." [233] Clearly Calvinists only shoot themselves in the foot by using Paul for their purposes here.

But for the first time the question is raised, "Why Isaac and not Ishmael?" Paul gives no reply; as a loyal Hebrew, as Wilson would put it, he would consider the question pointless, for it would be quite obvious what the answer would be: God is holy, just and good; therefore whatever the reasons for His choice of Isaac over Ishmael, it was right. Why bother of the details? The answer would lie in God's nature, so we can make a reasonable assessment. God is love; his choice is motivated by love (meaning, in the sense of agape, the greater good); so Isaac was chosen over Ishmael because it served the greater good. And why is that? Perhaps the answer lies in what DID happen when Ishmael founded a nation: It was obviously less suitable for God's purpose which Isaac's descendants fulfilled. The Calvinist like Palmer who merely gives up and says a "human searching mind" can find no answer, does so aware that they cannot take the same route we have without undermining their own doctrine of election. We cannot conclude at all from this WHY God chose one over the other; Paul only tells us why God did NOT choose one over the other -- not because of ethnic identity. And since this alone is the matter germane to the issues he is addressing, we should hardly gave expected an answer to the "why" beyond this anyway. Both his subject matter and his Hebrew expression of mind mean that Paul saw no need to expound the matter further.

Thus how Paul addresses the issues is clear:

* "If the Jews are covenant people, why do the majority reject the Gospel?" The answer: Ethnic identity has nothing to do with being God's covenant people. So the rejection of the Gospel by the Jews means nothing.
* "If the Jews are condemned for rejecting Christ, how do you explain that they remain in power in Judaea with Roman blessing even now, that their religion thrives, that they possess this beautiful Temple?" How then to explain Ishmael's own extensive blessing, and the many nations he fathered?
* "The failure of the Jews to believe is a reason to reject and condemn Israel as a body." -- yet God blessed Ishmael and Esau, and accepted them into His covenant. So there's no excuse not to evangelize Jews.