Paul's teaching in Romans 9

[bleitzel]

Because Ephesians 1 and Romans 9 are so often used as proof texts for the doctrine of election, that God made some people predestined to eternal life and some predestined to eternal death, it seemed important to verify that these texts do actually teach this doctrine. Ephesians 1 is interesting in that Paul never speaks of the group that is predestined to eternal death, and even in verse 11 says that we have also been chosen, seemingly also meaning along with the Jews. So Paul's message in Ephesians 1 may not back up the doctrine of election but actually undermine it.

So let's look at Romans 9: (NIV)

1 I speak the truth in Christ—I am not lying, my conscience confirms it through the Holy Spirit— 2 I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my people, those of my own race, 4 the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption to sonship; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. 5 Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.​

Leading up to chapter 9 Paul has been talking in earnest about how Jewish-Christians should see themselves and what their faith means, but here in the beginning of Chapter 9 he makes a shift. He now focuses on all of Judaism and we can see that because he talks about wishing himself cursed and cut off from Christ for their sake. He wouldn't need to wish himself cut off from Christ for believers so we can see that he is now talking about unbelieving Jews. And he does go on to talk about their rich history with God.

6 It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7 Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” 8 In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring. 9 For this was how the promise was stated: “At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son.”​

In verses 6 through 9 he does give us a crucial theological teaching, that belonging to God, belonging to God's people, belonging to Israel is about having faith, not your ancestry. Simple genealogy doesn't add up to being God's child. But we can't skip the beginning of verse 6. Here Paul iterates the dilemma. If what he is teaching is true, the imaginary objector would ask "Has God's promises to Israel failed?" Certainly Paul answers that question clearly by showing the importance of faith over ancestry, but there's more that he wants to say:

10 Not only that, but Rebekah’s children were conceived at the same time by our father Isaac.​

Understanding the Jewish mindset is crucial at this point. The non-believing Jews of Paul's day would have had many objections to Paul's teaching, several of which carried over to Jewish-Christians. But not all of them would have. One of them would have been "Why would God be letting the gentiles into the family of God at such a late date? We have been His people for so long, and now the Gentiles get to come in?!?" In verse 9 Paul had finished answering the question of whether God's promises to Israel had failed and beginning with the "Not only that..." in verse 10 he starts to answer the question of why would God be letting the Gentiles in now. And he does it in a striking way. The first thing he reminds them is that both of Rebekah's children (representing all Jews and Gentiles) were conceived at the same time, meaning that yes, all children were Rebekah's and by inference God's. Remember, the Jewish world believes that God created all people but chose only the Jews to be His people. The Gentiles were believed at this point point to be cast out, hated by God.

11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: 12 not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”​

Here Paul slaps them in the face. The Jews believe that God created all mankind but chose them to be special and are now objecting that surely God wouldn't be letting the Gentiles into His family at this late date, they were here first! And Paul uses their own teaching, the very story where they get the idea that they were chosen special to point out that the older will serve the younger. In this case, the older chosen ones, the Jews, may have been serving the younger chosen ones the Gentiles! He's equating the Jews with being older, complaining about the Gentiles being the younger ones, let in at a much later date. Paul is making the Jews the Esau of the story and the Gentiles Jacob. This would have been shocking to Jews, if not downright insulting. You would expect a reaction of "Blasphemy!" or "God is unjust!"

14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses,

“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”
16 It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17 For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.​

Paul isn't using the mercy on whom I have mercy, compassion on whim I have compassion and hardens whom he wants to harden speech as a way of justifying God choosing some over others. On the contrary, following his points above about the Gentiles now being included, Paul here uses the very self-justification language, the very scriptures the Jews of his day used in defense of their "chosen" theology against them. When asked how could a loving God choose to make some people for eternal life (the Jews) and some for eternal death (the Gentiles) zealous Jews would use these kind of scriptures to say God can do what he wants! His ways are higher than our ways, he can harden whom he wants to harden, etc. But Paul's actual point, for those of us who are following along at home is that God doesn't not have mercy on anyone. So Paul is once again using the Jews' own language against themselves to make his point. Another objection comes:

19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” 20 But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’” 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?​

Paul anticipates his audience resigning themselves to questioning that if God really did choose them first only to choose the Gentiles later then how could he blame them for unbelief? His answer, I believe, goes again back to common language they used at that day to justify the opposite position, that they were chosen and the Gentiles were not. And then comes Paul's capstone in this line of thinking, a hypothetical question that Paul doesn't really mean, but uses for its full effect:

22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24 even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?​

Paul's dramatic question even asks, what if the Jews are not only the Esau of the story, carrying this line of thinking all the way out, what if God not only chose the Jews first just so that He could choose the Gentiles later, what if He actually was waiting until the end and the Gentiles were really his people all along and the Jews were the ones that were going to be cast into the eternal fire!!! Now Paul, doesn't really meant this is the case as we'll see in Chapter 11 the Jews can still come back into the fold. But Paul is continuing his theological point by using the very same elitist teaching the Jews had been preaching for so long back on them but in reverse. Must have been a bitter pill.

25 As he says in Hosea:

“I will call them ‘my people’ who are not my people;
and I will call her ‘my loved one’ who is not my loved one,”
26 and,

“In the very place where it was said to them,
‘You are not my people,’
there they will be called ‘children of the living God.’”​

Although Paul reminds the Jews once again of their chosen scriptures and now how they can be turned back against them, he does go on to talk about that not all Jews will be cast out now:

27 Isaiah cries out concerning Israel:

“Though the number of the Israelites be like the sand by the sea,
only the remnant will be saved.
28 For the Lord will carry out
his sentence on earth with speed and finality.”
29 It is just as Isaiah said previously:

“Unless the Lord Almighty
had left us descendants,
we would have become like Sodom,
we would have been like Gomorrah.”​

How is it that this remnant will be saved?

30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone. 33 As it is written:

“See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes people to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall,
and the one who believes in him will never be put to shame.”​

Paul's chapter 9 of his letter to the Romans is not about individual election, or even about corporate election. It's not part of a message about God electing some and not others. Quite the opposite, in fact. Paul instead is using language that already belongs to a theology of election and standing it on its head, using it to stridently refute this teaching of election and instead showing how God loves all people, Jews and Gentiles alike.

 

[Skala]

Quite the opposite, in fact. Paul instead is using language that already belongs to a theology of election and standing it on its head, using it to stridently refute this teaching of election and instead showing how God loves all people, Jews and Gentiles alike.

Except Paul concludes his argument in Romans 9 by saying he's talking about "those who are called, not from the Jews only, but also from the Gentiles"

So, he, himself says that he is not merely saying "God chose the Gentiles, too!" in a generic, all inclusive sense, but rather, "God chose some Gentiles, and some Jews"

In other words, Paul is not saying God chose "the" Gentiles, but "those who are called from the Gentiles".

In fact, I just quoted him verbatim!

Every single "exegesis" I see of Romans 9 always ignores the implications of Paul's words in verse 24

Your statements below completely ignore or contradict the words in verse 24:

It's not part of a message about God electing some and not others. Quite the opposite, in fact. Paul instead is using language that already belongs to a theology of election and standing it on its head, using it to stridently refute this teaching of election and instead showing how God loves all people, Jews and Gentiles alike.

You assert here that "This is not a message about God electing some and not others", but as you can see from verse 24, yes it is. If the passage is about "Those who are called, not only from the Jews, but also from the Gentiles", then it is. The phrase "Those who are called "from both groups" refutes your statement that nobody in particular is "called" (chosen).

You said this passage was about how God loves all people (equally), but Paul says this passage is about God's love for "those who are called from the Jews and the Gentiles"

To reiterate:

bleitzel: This passage is about all Jews and all Gentiles, but nobody in particular

The Apostle Paul: This passage is about us who are called, from the Jews, but also from the Gentiles

 

[bleitzel]

Except Paul concludes his argument in Romans 9 by saying he's talking about "those who are called, not from the Jews only, but also from the Gentiles"

So, he, himself says that he is not merely saying "God chose the Gentiles, too!" in a generic, all inclusive sense, but rather, "God chose some Gentiles, and some Jews"

In other words, Paul is not saying God chose "the" Gentiles, but "those who are called from the Gentiles".

In fact, I just quoted him verbatim!

Every single "exegesis" I see of Romans 9 always ignores the implications of Paul's words in verse 24

Your statements below completely ignore or contradict the words in verse 24:



You assert here that "This is not a message about God electing some and not others", but as you can see from verse 24, yes it is. If the passage is about "Those who are called, not only from the Jews, but also from the Gentiles", then it is. The phrase "Those who are called "from both groups" refutes your statement that nobody in particular is "called" (chosen).

You said this passage was about how God loves all people (equally), but Paul says this passage is about God's love for "those who are called from the Jews and the Gentiles"

To reiterate:

bleitzel: This passage is about all Jews and all Gentiles, but nobody in particular

The Apostle Paul: This passage is about us who are called, from the Jews, but also from the Gentiles

Alright, let's look at it:

22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24 even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?(NIV)​

By asking "What if God..." Paul starts this passage off with a hypothetical question, meant for taking an idea to an extreme for the sake of proving a point, not for showing what is truly the case.

And he's luring the Jews in, almost flaming them if you will, asking, what if God was waiting out your (Jews) long period of disobedience SO THAT He could get to the ones He's been waiting for, THE GENTILES! What a slam that must have seemed to them.

And he says what if God did this to show his mercy on those whom He also called - this is a key point. Paul has been talking about the non-believing Jews so far and they thought they were the chosen ones. Here in verse 24, like in Ephesians 1:11 Paul says "us, whom he also called..." Paul puts himself in with his gentile Christian audience here in the us clearly as he says they were also called because as we know the Jews were called first, and to prove his point he reminds them that the believers in the messiah are from the Jews and from the Gentiles. The Gentiles are included in God's plan, God's family.

Your assessment could have been right if it weren't for Paul's "us, whom he also called". That throws it off. This passage is certainly about the non-believing Jews as he began in verses 3 and 4.

 

[Butch5]

The doctrine of Election is really quite simple. God made promises to Abraham, and the doctrine of Election is God choosing those He would use to fulfill those promises.

 

[bling]

Originally Posted by bleitzel
Paul's teaching in Romans 9

Before we get started going verse by verse, there are some over all issues with your explanation.
The entire Book of Romans is used in secular college’s philosophy classes as one of the best examples in the use of Logic to build your argument. Paul does a superb job of logically going from what we know to what we do not know and then take that new truth to logical go to know something else and so on.
The whole Book of Romans is also used in secular education classes as one of the best examples of the consistent use of diatribe and logic in the teaching of people you do not have a close personal relationship with. This can also be contrasted with Paul’s teaching those that he considers his children.
For Paul to insert into in the middle of this most excellent example of teaching and philosophical logic the worst possible method of teach strangers (a new audience that would know him even less) in written form (the use of sarcasm, prodding and goading his readers) is unbelievable. If Paul wants to be taken serious about what he said in Ro. 9:1-5 he needs to avoid coming across as being cute.

1-5
Paul is talking about unbelieving Jews alright, but that does not mean they have been added to his audience. The Jewish Christians were still living amongst their nonbelieving Jewish friends and relatives and behaving very Jewish with the exception of believing Jesus was the Messiah. These Jewish Christians very similar to the Jewish Christian Paul could have had similar prejudice feelings toward kinsman. Paul so far in the letter has been fairly hard on the Jewish Christians so this would soften the blow.

The letter did not go out to all the Jews, since non-Christians Jews would never get past the first chapter of Romans (“order that I might have a harvest among you, just as I have had among the other Gentiles.”) without burning it.

6 -9
In verses 6 through 9 he does give us a crucial theological teaching, that belonging to God, belonging to God's people, belonging to Israel is about having faith, not your ancestry. Simple genealogy doesn't add up to being God's child. But we can't skip the beginning of verse 6. Here Paul iterates the dilemma. If what he is teaching is true, the imaginary objector would ask "Has God's promises to Israel failed?"

Paul uses an ancient form of rhetoric known as diatribe (imaginary debate) asking questions and giving a strong “By no means” and then goes on to explain “why not”. Paul uses this style before, in and after Chapters 9-11, but you are suggesting he arbitrarily jumps in with a different style here (leaving out the “question” all together)? How would his audience realize Paul’s sudden change and why did Paul immediately go back to the way he had been teaching? Do you have a logical reason for this? Would the Jewish Roman Christians feel “God’s promise has failed Israel since they are part of that promise? The question you present of “Has God’s promised failed” would have to come from a non-student in the group, a non-Christian Jew, but he is not being addressed in the letter anywhere else?
Certainly Paul answers that question clearly by showing the importance of faith over ancestry, but there's more that he wants to say:

10 -13
Here Paul slaps them in the face. The Jews believe that God created all mankind but chose them to be special and are now objecting that surely God wouldn't be letting the Gentiles into His family at this late date, they were here first! And Paul uses their own teaching, the very story where they get the idea that they were chosen special to point out that the older will serve the younger. In this case, the older chosen ones, the Jews, may have been serving the younger chosen ones the Gentiles! He's equating the Jews with being older, complaining about the Gentiles being the younger ones, let in at a much later date. Paul is making the Jews the Esau of the story and the Gentiles Jacob. This would have been shocking to Jews, if not downright insulting. You would expect a reaction of "Blasphemy!" or "God is unjust!"

Wow! Paul has been on a roll with the Jewish Christians from verse one showing his own prejudice toward the Jewish people and now showing God’s prejudice toward the Jewish people. You seem to be suggesting Paul interjects the gentiles as Jacob without stating that concept very unique use of the story ???
In reality, the older relationship between God and man went back prior to circumcision.
Paul said exclusively about the Jews: “Theirs is the adoption to sonship; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises.” He then goes on to say about Isaac a Jew: ““It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” And then Paul goes on to say about Jacob the Jew: ““Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” So is Paul showing the superiority, the honor, the privileged, the significance of the Jews over the Gentiles, Isaac over Ishmael and Jacob over Esau?
Did the Jews feel honored, privileged and superior to the Gentiles?
Does it appear the Jewish Christians in Rome felt superior to even the gentile Christians?
Where the Jews prior to Christ coming given a more privileged position in God’s plan, did God set the Jews up to be set apart for some greater task and purpose? (Paul seems to be stating that).
Now if you are suggesting Paul is telling the Roman Christians with: she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” That God loves the Gentile even the Gentile Christians and now “hates” the Jew even the nonbelieving Jews, it is not coming across that way. Paul does seem to trying to show equality between the Jews and Gentiles and not trying to drive an even great wedge between them by suggesting the gentiles have become superior to any Jews.
Paul from the first 5 verses is not showing anything but a deep Love for nonbelieving Jews, so is Paul more loving than God?
Paul has been presenting in the first 8 chapters that the Jews and gentile are equal and not the idea the Gentile have become superior to the Jews? Ro. 3: 9…For we have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under the power of sin. Ro 3:22 This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile Ro 10:12 For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, Ro. 15: 27 They were pleased to do it, and indeed they owe it to them. For if the Gentiles have shared in the Jews’ spiritual blessings, they owe it to the Jews to share with them their material blessings

14-18
Paul isn't using the mercy on whom I have mercy, compassion on whim I have compassion and hardens whom he wants to harden speech as a way of justifying God choosing some over others. On the contrary, following his points above about the Gentiles now being included, Paul here uses the very self-justification language, the very scriptures the Jews of his day used in defense of their "chosen" theology against them. When asked how could a loving God choose to make some people for eternal life (the Jews) and some for eternal death (the Gentiles) zealous Jews would use these kind of scriptures to say God can do what he wants! His ways are higher than our ways, he can harden whom he wants to harden, etc. But Paul's actual point, for those of us who are following along at home is that God doesn't not have mercy on anyone. So Paul is once again using the Jews' own language against themselves to make his point. Another objection comes:

You are using a double negative here so I do not know what you are saying with: “God doesn't not have mercy on anyone.”? I guess you mean God has “mercy” on everyone?
You really need to define mercy? While you’re at it define Godly type Love, grace, charity, and God’s forgiveness.
Who does God want to have mercy on and does everyone God wants to have mercy on go to heaven and if not why not?

19 -21
Paul anticipates his audience resigning themselves to questioning that if God really did choose them first only to choose the Gentiles later then how could he blame them for unbelief? His answer, I believe, goes again back to common language they used at that day to justify the opposite position, that they were chosen and the Gentiles were not. And then comes Paul's capstone in this line of thinking, a hypothetical question that Paul doesn't really mean, but uses for its full effect:

You might get away with “a hypothetical question that Paul doesn't really mean, but uses for its full effect” if you are physically in front of a group that really knows you, but this is in a letter to people that never met Paul, so that is an extremely poor way to communicate.
Are you suggesting the Jewish Christians in Paul’s audience would ask: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?”. That might be a question the nonbelieving Jews who are not Paul’s audience might ask but I do not see why, so who would ask the question?
Why would the Jews need “common language” to justify their special honored status Paul gave it: Theirs is the adoption to son ship; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises.

22 -24
Paul's dramatic question even asks, what if the Jews are not only the Esau of the story, carrying this line of thinking all the way out, what if God not only chose the Jews first just so that He could choose the Gentiles later, what if He actually was waiting until the end and the Gentiles were really his people all along and the Jews were the ones that were going to be cast into the eternal fire!!! Now Paul, doesn't really meant this is the case as we'll see in Chapter 11 the Jews can still come back into the fold. But Paul is continuing his theological point by using the very same elitist teaching the Jews had been preaching for so long back on them but in reverse. Must have been a bitter pill.

Up till chapter 9 Paul has done the most excellent job of logically presenting his argument for why the Gentile and Jewish Christians should be in full fellowship and will continue to build that argument , but you explanation of Chapter 9 has Paul going off on some tangent into an imaginary false speculation.
You think Paul is showing by being illogical what?

25-33
Paul's chapter 9 of his letter to the Romans is not about individual election, or even about corporate election. It's not part of a message about God electing some and not others. Quite the opposite, in fact. Paul instead is using language that already belongs to a theology of election and standing it on its head, using it to stridently refute this teaching of election and instead showing how God loves all people, Jews and Gentiles alike.

The Jewish “election” was taught the way Paul understood it “Theirs is the adoption to sonship; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises.” And in that way the Jews were the elect (privileged/honored/having a greater objective/Holy), but that does not mean they were elected to be saved and thus were all going to heaven.
My understanding an explanation (and I can go through it verse by verse) maintains Paul’s perfect use of logic and excellent teaching method using diatribe (imaginary debate). I also would not say Paul went off on some tangent, but is sticking to logically building his case and making an excellent sales pitch for the fellowshipping of Jewish and Gentile Christians.
The bottom line in Chapter 9 is: “Even though the Jews were given this very honorable purpose as far as individual salvation (which is of the greatest importance) it does not matter if you are Jew or gentile.

 

[bleitzel]

The letter did not go out to all the Jews, since non-Christians Jews would never get past the first chapter of Romans (“order that I might have a harvest among you, just as I have had among the other Gentiles.”) without burning it.

Since most of your rebuttal is surprise that Paul went this direction in his letter at this time, I'll defend that point first. You may not like that Paul decided to address non-believing Jews but it's not even the first time he did it in Romans. There's precedence: Chapter 2:17-24

17 Now you, if you call yourself a Jew; if you rely on the law and boast in God; 18 if you know his will and approve of what is superior because you are instructed by the law; 19 if you are convinced that you are a guide for the blind, a light for those who are in the dark, 20 an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of little children, because you have in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth— 21 you, then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal? 22 You who say that people should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? 23 You who boast in the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law? 24 As it is written: “God’s name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.”​

Christian-Jews would not be the ones relying on and boasting in the law. And if you don't like that proof, your argument is that Paul would not be going off track in his argument therefore I am wrong, look again at the first chapter. He clearly addresses Romans to gentiles and only gentiles, but then proceeds to talk largely about Jews.

Paul is definitely addressing the non-believing Jews in Chapter 9. I may be able to address more of your post later.

 

[bling]

Originally Posted by bleitzel

Since most of your rebuttal is surprise that Paul went this direction in his letter at this time, I'll defend that point first. You may not like that Paul decided to address non-believing Jews but it's not even the first time he did it in Romans. There's precedence: Chapter 2:17-24
17 Now you, if you call yourself a Jew; if you rely on the law and boast in God; 18 if you know his will and approve of what is superior because you are instructed by the law; 19 if you are convinced that you are a guide for the blind, a light for those who are in the dark, 20 an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of little children, because you have in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth— 21 you, then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal? 22 You who say that people should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? 23 You who boast in the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law? 24 As it is written: “God’s name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.”
Christian-Jews would not be the ones relying on and boasting in the law. And if you don't like that proof, your argument is that Paul would not be going off track in his argument therefore I am wrong, look again at the first chapter. He clearly addresses Romans to gentiles and only gentiles, but then proceeds to talk largely about Jews.

First off Paul’s letter was not to Gentiles only: (RSV) Ro. 1: 5 through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations, 6 including yourselves who are called to belong to Jesus Christ;7 To all God’s beloved in Rome, who are called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

On this subject the big question is:

How and why would a nonbeliever Jew at this time in Rome read what Paul addressed to them (assuming he addressed it to them)?

None of the New Testament letters were directly addressing nonbelievers, so what is the logic behind Paul doing it?


Look at the context even in the Roman verses you chose: 17 “Now you…” would that have to be those Paul is addressing?

Another huge problem with saying Paul is write even this one paragraph to non-believing Jews: it is not the way Paul has ever addressed the nonbeliever: 21 you, then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal? 22 You who say that people should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? 23 You who boast in the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law?

No one would ever speak so harshly to people that you did not know and were trying to convert and the nonbeliever Jew in Rome is not keeping Paul from his objective. The nonbelieving Jew in Rome would not have a high respect for Paul and be likely to accept such harsh criticism. You do not try to drive the nonbeliever away in the first 60 seconds, see Paul’s Love for nonbelieving Jews in Ro. 9: 1-5. Why would they ever continue to listen to anything he said after this harsh criticism?

Look how Paul addressed nonbelievers other places, with personal witnessing, complementing them “I see you are very religious”, healings, and miracles.

Paul did get in the face of a pagan sorcerer but that was because the sorcerer was directly disturbing Paul’s teaching of those that wanted to hear. Paul did get on Peter, but Peter was not an unbeliever at the time. These nonbelieving Jews in Rome are not getting between Paul and the gentiles in Rome.

Here is what we do know and some things we can easily assume concerning the context of Rome:

1. Secular history has shown there was a large population (40,000 estimated) of Jews separated into at least two communities having an est. seven synagogues in the first century (BC).
2. Secular history shows the first Jews to Rome were ambassadors sent to Rome by Judah Maccabee in 161 BCE, so they had been there a very long time.
3. Secular history supports the idea these Jews in Rome where following the Jewish traditions, (they were allowed to be compensated on other days than Saturday).
4. There would have been Jewish Pilgrims from Rome on Pentecost to hear Peter (an est. 250,000 pilgrims came to Jerusalem during this time, so some would most like have come from Rome).
5. After the stoning of Steven most of the new Jewish-Christians that stayed on to learn more about Christianity from distant places like Rome, returned home right after the time of the stoning. But that would also mean they had not been taught the teaching of gentiles without first making a gentile into a Jewish proselytes. Up to the stoning of Steven all the converts had been Jews and from all indications these Christians where still following all the Jewish traditions especially food, circumcision and Sabbaths. Those new Jewish-Christians from Rome returning to these large Jewish Communities would not have to make converts among the Gentiles since they were segregated from gentiles and had lots of Jews to convert.
6. We know there were Gentile converts but they might have come from Christians that have moved back to Rome from living among Gentile Christians like: Ro. 16:3 Priscilla and Aquila, my co-workers in Christ Jesus.
7. From the long list of Jews Paul did know in Rome we can assume there were lot more Jewish Christians in Rome.
8. There is nothing to suggest any other New Testament letters even got to Rome before Paul’s letter, so the only “scripture” the Romans had to work with was the Old Testament.

From what I am reading throughout Romans, the Jewish Christians were trying to force the Gentile Christians to at least follow the dietary Jewish requirements, the holiday/Sabbath Jewish requirements and to be circumcised. Do you agree or was this being done by nonbelieving Jews?

Look what Paul concludes with in Romans 14: 10 You, then, why do you judge your brother or sister? Or why do you treat them with contempt?

Does that have to mean Christians in Rome were treating and judging other Christians with contempt, so would that include Jewish Christians treatment of Gentile Christians?

Ro. 14: 13 Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in the way of a brother or sister.

Could the “stumbling block” Paul is addressing be the one Jewish Christians placed in front of Gentile Christians in the form of circumcision, dietary law, and Sabbath keeping? That has been what Paul has been talking about all through Romans.

Are you suggesting the hypocrites Paul describes in Ro. 14 are nonbeliever Jews or Christian Brothers/Sisters?

Does the description of hypocritical Christians in Ro. 14 also fit the description of hypocrites “people” in Ro.1?

Would the description of the Christian hypocrites in Ro. 14 fit a Jewish Christian trying to teach and force on His Christian brothers circumcision, Jewish dietary requirements and the keeping of Jewish Sabbaths?

From this information I would conclude Paul was very upset over the contempt the Jewish Christians in Rome had for the Gentile Brothers and sisters, so Paul would hit these Jewish brothers hard from the beginning. Paul knew (from all those that Paul did know in Rome chp. 16 ) these Jewish brothers were being very hypocritical and from his own personal experience Paul also knew in their hearts they knew they were being hypocritical. So Paul addresses this issue right away with verse 1:17-24. Paul will them spend lots of words in rest of Romans showing the Jewish Christians, how hypocritical they are.
There are even bigger issues I addressed in my post like:


1. Why did Paul mess up his excellent logical and teaching method by arbitrarily changing his style, method and audience in mid letter and go back?
2. How could anyone gleam from just what Paul wrote that Paul was using allegorically saying Esau represents nonbelieving Jews and Jacob represents believing Gentiles?
3. Paul up to Ro. 9 has been addressing believing Jews and Gentiles, so where would the believing Jews and the nonbelieving Gentiles fall in this unique “Esau/Jacob allegory”?
4. Paul in verse 1-5 of 9 shows a strong prejudice toward all Jews and shows God gave them privileges and honor way above gentiles with (Isaac and Jacob) so how could the reader turn and say gentiles are allegorically like the privileged and honored Jacob and Jews are now like the “hated” Esau?
5. The contrast Paul has been presenting and continue to present after Ro. 9 has and will be between Jews and Gentiles, so who and how would it help to contrast nonbelieving Jews with believing Gentiles?
6. Paul has been trying to show equality between Jews and gentiles in the area that counts (salvation) so how would it help to emphasis the contrast between saved Gentiles and lost Jews?
7. We do not need to speculate on how the Jews used Old Testament Scripture to try and have book chapter and verse to show the Jews were privileged and honored over the gentiles, Paul is in agreement with that concept in verse 4. That is an historical fact. So how do you know only first century nonbelieving Jews used these scriptures for that purpose?
8. How can you say the nonbelieving Jew that felt like Paul described in Ro. 9: 4 would turn and now to belief God was being unfair to them and had made the Gentile the privileged group, if they did not believe in Christianity?

Paul is definitely addressing the non-believing Jews in Chapter 9. I may be able to address more of your post later.

Not shown.

 

[Skala]

The doctrine of Election is really quite simple. God made promises to Abraham, and the doctrine of Election is God choosing those He would use to fulfill those promises.

One of those promises was to have a people for himself that he would be the God of.

 

[Butch5]

One of those promises was to have a people for himself that he would be the God of.

Here is Election in a nutshell.

God had made some promises to Abraham.

KJV Genesis 17:1 And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect. {perfect: or, upright, or, sincere}
2 And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly.
3 And Abram fell on his face: and God talked with him, saying,
4 As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations. {many...: Heb. multitude of nations}
5 Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee. {Abraham: that is, Father of a great multitude}
6 And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee.
7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.
8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God. {wherein...: Heb. of thy sojournings}
9 And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations. (Gen 17:1-9 KJV)

15 And the angel of the LORD called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time,
16 And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son:
17 That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; {shore: Heb. lip}
18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice. (Gen 22:15-18 KJV)

These are the promises that God made to Abraham, he would be the father of a great nation, the father of many nations, he would inherit the land in which he was a pilgrim, and that all nations would be blessed through his seed. This is Election and Predestination. God has elected Abraham and predetermined (predestined) that all nations would be blessed through Abraham's seed. God worked through Isaac and Jacob to bring about this plan. Here we see Moses telling the Israel why they were chosen.

6 For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.
7 "The LORD did not set His love on you nor choose you because you were more in number than any other people, for you were the least of all peoples;
8 "but because the LORD loves you, and because He would keep the oath which He swore to your fathers, the LORD has brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you from the house of bondage, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt. (Deu 7:6-8 NKJ)

God had promised Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob that all nations would be blessed through their seed. God worked through many people in the OT including David to whom He promised that He seed would reign on this throne forever.

11 The LORD hath sworn in truth unto David; he will not turn from it; Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne. {body: Heb. belly}
12 If thy children will keep my covenant and my testimony that I shall teach them, their children shall also sit upon thy throne for evermore.
13 For the LORD hath chosen Zion; he hath desired it for his habitation.
14 This is my rest for ever: here will I dwell; for I have desired it. (Psa 132:11-14 KJV)

God continues this work right into the NT.

The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. (Mat 1:1 KJV)

The first words in the NT say that Jesus Christ is the son of David, the son of Abraham, He is Abraham's seed.

The Jews thought they were the seed because they were the physical offspring of Abraham, however, Paul tells them they're not. They misunderstood.

6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. {accounted: or, imputed}
7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.
8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.
10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.
13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto. {covenant: or, testament}
16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
(Gal 3:6-16 KJV)

Paul says that when God made the promise to Abraham He didn't mean all of Abraham's seed but rather one of Abraham's seed and that Seed is Christ. In other words, all the nations would be blessed by one of Abraham's offspring which is Christ. Paul goes on to conclude,

26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. (Gal 3:26-29 KJV)

If You are Christ's then you are Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise. God chose Abraham's seed, however, Paul said they are not all Israel that are of Israel. In other words, they are not all the Israel of God who are of the man Jacob, all of the physical seed of Jacob are not the Israel of God. Those who are of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham and as Paul said, if you are Christ's, you are Abraham's seed.

That is Election and Predestination, God choosing a man and a people. God didn't choose who would be in Christ only that those in Christ would be the Elect.

 

[mercy1061]

Because Ephesians 1 and Romans 9 are so often used as proof texts for the doctrine of election, that God made some people predestined to eternal life and some predestined to eternal death, it seemed important to verify that these texts do actually teach this doctrine. Ephesians 1 is interesting in that Paul never speaks of the group that is predestined to eternal death, and even in verse 11 says that we have also been chosen, seemingly also meaning along with the Jews. So Paul's message in Ephesians 1 may not back up the doctrine of election but actually undermine it.

Pharisee Shaul is establishing his identity as a jew; jew law among gentiles. The "we" here refers to the jews and "you" most often means the gentiles. Pharisee Shaul is not promoting some kind of calvinistic doctrine; but he is establishing torah kingdom law among gentiles.

So let's look at Romans 9: (NIV)

1 I speak the truth in Christ—I am not lying, my conscience confirms it through the Holy Spirit— 2 I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my people, those of my own race, 4 the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption to sonship; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. 5 Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.​

Leading up to chapter 9 Paul has been talking in earnest about how Jewish-Christians should see themselves and what their faith means, but here in the beginning of Chapter 9 he makes a shift. He now focuses on all of Judaism and we can see that because he talks about wishing himself cursed and cut off from Christ for their sake. He wouldn't need to wish himself cut off from Christ for believers so we can see that he is now talking about unbelieving Jews. And he does go on to talk about their rich history with God.

The jews who followed Yeshua were called "christians" by their enemies, they were not "jewish christians". According to the scriptures, a "jew" who follows Yeshua is a christian; gentiles were never called christians.

6 It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel.​

You hear (verse 6), Pharisee Shaul is comparing the descendants of Israel to the descendants of Israel. "For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel".

7 Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children.

All of the descendants of Israel are not Abraham's children.

On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.”

Now we know an adopted son is called the son of the father, but we all know the adopted son is not really the son of the parent whom is taking care of him. It is through Isaac that Abraham's offspring will be called. Abraham's children were made G-d's children (verse 4). The present condition (during that time & today) of Israel being persecuted does not negate the promise made to Abraham (verse 10).

8 In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring. 9 For this was how the promise was stated: “At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son.”

Abraham's offspring "will be called" (future tense) through Isaac, although Abraham already had a seed; firstborn son through Hagar; Ishmael.

In verses 6 through 9 he does give us a crucial theological teaching, that belonging to God, belonging to God's people, belonging to Israel is about having faith, not your ancestry. Simple genealogy doesn't add up to being God's child. But we can't skip the beginning of verse 6. Here Paul iterates the dilemma. If what he is teaching is true, the imaginary objector would ask "Has God's promises to Israel failed?" Certainly Paul answers that question clearly by showing the importance of faith over ancestry, but there's more that he wants to say:

This is not a theological lesson from a western seminary school, this a family issue, Isaac and Ishmael were brothers; Ishmael is Israel's uncle. Isaac is the firstborn from Sarah; Abraham's first wife. We have two firstborns, two covenants through Abraham's two wives, Sarah and Hagar. However since Hagar is a bondservant or slave, she only has temporary residence in Abraham's house, Sarah makes her leave Abraham's house. Yet, Hagar's son is not a slave, he was born free, by his mother leaving she was set free, "no generational slavery", Ishmael is therefore the son of Abraham, the son of a priest. Abraham's priesthood continues in Ishmael; Jethro the high priest of Midian; descendant of Ishmael. Jethro the high priest (son of Ishmael) taught Moses and Aaron the law passed down from the fathers.

10 Not only that, but Rebekah’s children were conceived at the same time by our father Isaac.​

Rebekah's children were conceived at the same time, which means it was a close race for firstborn. Israel is the firstborn, "the elder shall serve the younger". Israel served Esau at the dinner table.

Understanding the Jewish mindset is crucial at this point. The non-believing Jews of Paul's day would have had many objections to Paul's teaching, several of which carried over to Jewish-Christians. But not all of them would have. One of them would have been "Why would God be letting the gentiles into the family of God at such a late date? We have been His people for so long, and now the Gentiles get to come in?!?" In verse 9 Paul had finished answering the question of whether God's promises to Israel had failed and beginning with the "Not only that..." in verse 10 he starts to answer the question of why would God be letting the Gentiles in now. And he does it in a striking way. The first thing he reminds them is that both of Rebekah's children (representing all Jews and Gentiles) were conceived at the same time, meaning that yes, all children were Rebekah's and by inference God's. Remember, the Jewish world believes that God created all people but chose only the Jews to be His people. The Gentiles were believed at this point point to be cast out, hated by God.

Gentiles were never hated by G-d. Gentiles were always allowed to enter Abraham's household without objection, Abraham married Hagar the Egyptian. Moses married Zipporah the Cushite or Ethiopian. Although I would not consider them gentiles, they were non-Israelite citizens. The Egyptians and Ethiopians practice ancient customs like circumcision, that Abraham later adopted. The Romans were gentiles; Pharisee Shaul was a pharisee, also a roman citizen.

11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: 12 not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”​

Here Paul slaps them in the face. The Jews believe that God created all mankind but chose them to be special and are now objecting that surely God wouldn't be letting the Gentiles into His family at this late date, they were here first! And Paul uses their own teaching, the very story where they get the idea that they were chosen special to point out that the older will serve the younger. In this case, the older chosen ones, the Jews, may have been serving the younger chosen ones the Gentiles! He's equating the Jews with being older, complaining about the Gentiles being the younger ones, let in at a much later date. Paul is making the Jews the Esau of the story and the Gentiles Jacob. This would have been shocking to Jews, if not downright insulting. You would expect a reaction of "Blasphemy!" or "God is unjust!"

14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses,

“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”
16 It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17 For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.​

Paul isn't using the mercy on whom I have mercy, compassion on whim I have compassion and hardens whom he wants to harden speech as a way of justifying God choosing some over others. On the contrary, following his points above about the Gentiles now being included, Paul here uses the very self-justification language, the very scriptures the Jews of his day used in defense of their "chosen" theology against them. When asked how could a loving God choose to make some people for eternal life (the Jews) and some for eternal death (the Gentiles) zealous Jews would use these kind of scriptures to say God can do what he wants! His ways are higher than our ways, he can harden whom he wants to harden, etc. But Paul's actual point, for those of us who are following along at home is that God doesn't not have mercy on anyone. So Paul is once again using the Jews' own language against themselves to make his point. Another objection comes:

19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” 20 But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’” 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?​

Paul anticipates his audience resigning themselves to questioning that if God really did choose them first only to choose the Gentiles later then how could he blame them for unbelief? His answer, I believe, goes again back to common language they used at that day to justify the opposite position, that they were chosen and the Gentiles were not. And then comes Paul's capstone in this line of thinking, a hypothetical question that Paul doesn't really mean, but uses for its full effect:

22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24 even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?​

Paul's dramatic question even asks, what if the Jews are not only the Esau of the story, carrying this line of thinking all the way out, what if God not only chose the Jews first just so that He could choose the Gentiles later, what if He actually was waiting until the end and the Gentiles were really his people all along and the Jews were the ones that were going to be cast into the eternal fire!!! Now Paul, doesn't really meant this is the case as we'll see in Chapter 11 the Jews can still come back into the fold. But Paul is continuing his theological point by using the very same elitist teaching the Jews had been preaching for so long back on them but in reverse. Must have been a bitter pill.

He chose the jews because they were mistreated and heavily persecuted. The jews needed mercy shown to them since they were sold into slavery. You remember how Joseph brothers sold him into slavery? G-d showed Joseph's brothers mercy; Moses carried the "bones of Joseph". The story of the patriarch Joseph remained with Moses.

 

[mercy1061]

25 As he says in Hosea:

“I will call them ‘my people’ who are not my people;
and I will call her ‘my loved one’ who is not my loved one,”
26 and,

“In the very place where it was said to them,
‘You are not my people,’
there they will be called ‘children of the living God.’”
Although Paul reminds the Jews once again of their chosen scriptures and now how they can be turned back against them, he does go on to talk about that not all Jews will be cast out now:

Pharisee Shaul has already established that Israel gained her identity or "sonship" through legal adoption, now we all know the adopted son is not the natural seed, but she is called Abraham's offspring.

27 Isaiah cries out concerning Israel:

“Though the number of the Israelites be like the sand by the sea,
only the remnant will be saved.
28 For the Lord will carry out
his sentence on earth with speed and finality.”
29 It is just as Isaiah said previously:

“Unless the Lord Almighty
had left us descendants,
we would have become like Sodom,
we would have been like Gomorrah.”
How is it that this remnant will be saved?
30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone. 33 As it is written:

“See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes people to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall,
and the one who believes in him will never be put to shame.”
Paul's chapter 9 of his letter to the Romans is not about individual election, or even about corporate election. It's not part of a message about God electing some and not others. Quite the opposite, in fact. Paul instead is using language that already belongs to a theology of election and standing it on its head, using it to stridently refute this teaching of election and instead showing how God loves all people, Jews and Gentiles alike.

Isaiah speak of Israel having descendants, they were likely to be wiped off the face of the earth. Adoption is a legal term, the adopted son is shown mercy by the parent or guardian, he is treated as a son, though his not the actual seed of his father. If the adopted son does not follow the rules like the other natural born children of the father, the adopted son will be cast out; the adopted son does not possess the DNA of his father. In the case of Ishmael, Hagar was a slave, so the slave and her son were cast out. Isaac is the son of the free woman, yet he gained "sonship" through adoption, Ishmael is Abraham's true seed, when he returned home; to help his brother Isaac to bury their father (Gen 25:9).

9 Yitz’chak and Yishma‘el his sons buried him in the cave of Makhpelah, in the field of ‘Efron the son of Tzochar the Hitti, by Mamre,

 

[EmethAlethia]

All of the information given after Romans 9:9 is for support of how God can ungraft the Nation of Israel, as a Nation from the position of "Chosen People" none of this is about individual salvation at all. It is ONLY about Election as a Nation, not about individual salvation at all. Is Essau in heaven? Could very well be. Look:

Rom 9:3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, 4 who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, 5 whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen. 6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; 7 nor are they all children because they are Abraham's descendants, but: "THROUGH ISAAC YOUR DESCENDANTS WILL BE NAMED." 8 That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.

You can't take illustrations meant to prove a specific point, that the Nation of Israel is no longer considered as God's chosen people, and that, as a nation they are no longer in that position, and make them pertain to individual anything.

The illustrations illustrate this ONE, SINGLE, POINT!!! Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[EmethAlethia]

That was the summary, by the way.

 

[skypair]

I think you will find that Reform-types rely heavily on Romans, Galations, Ephesians, and one other (can't remember). These are the foundations for their doctrines. There is even a smaller group that say that Paul was the first to preach grace so the church age didn't begin until Acts 10 when Paul preached in Damascus (rather than Peter in Jerusalem).

I believe that we can all, therefore, realize that their interpretations in those books might leave quite a bit of scripture left out of their interpretations. I believe I read, too, that the first book that the lawyer John Calvin chose to write a commentary on was Romans. That would seem only natural for one deriving most of his doctrine from there.

skypair

 

[Skala]

I think you will find that Reform-types rely heavily on Romans, Galations, Ephesians, and one other (can't remember).

Those darn reformed people relying heavily on scripture! How dare they!

 

[stenerson]

Those darn reformed people relying heavily on scripture! How dare they!

 

[stenerson]

I think you will find that Reform-types rely heavily on Romans, Galations, Ephesians, and one other (can't remember).

skypair

+

For some reason I get this picture in my head when I read that.

you silly english types

 

[BBAS 64]

Because Ephesians 1 and Romans 9 are so often used as proof texts for the doctrine of election, that God made some people predestined to eternal life and some predestined to eternal death, it seemed important to verify that these texts do actually teach this doctrine. Ephesians 1 is interesting in that Paul never speaks of the group that is predestined to eternal death, and even in verse 11 says that we have also been chosen, seemingly also meaning along with the Jews. So Paul's message in Ephesians 1 may not back up the doctrine of election but actually undermine it.

So let's look at Romans 9: (NIV)

1 I speak the truth in Christ—I am not lying, my conscience confirms it through the Holy Spirit— 2 I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my people, those of my own race, 4 the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption to sonship; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. 5 Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.​

Leading up to chapter 9 Paul has been talking in earnest about how Jewish-Christians should see themselves and what their faith means, but here in the beginning of Chapter 9 he makes a shift. He now focuses on all of Judaism and we can see that because he talks about wishing himself cursed and cut off from Christ for their sake. He wouldn't need to wish himself cut off from Christ for believers so we can see that he is now talking about unbelieving Jews. And he does go on to talk about their rich history with God.

6 It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7 Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” 8 In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring. 9 For this was how the promise was stated: “At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son.”​

In verses 6 through 9 he does give us a crucial theological teaching, that belonging to God, belonging to God's people, belonging to Israel is about having faith, not your ancestry. Simple genealogy doesn't add up to being God's child. But we can't skip the beginning of verse 6. Here Paul iterates the dilemma. If what he is teaching is true, the imaginary objector would ask "Has God's promises to Israel failed?" Certainly Paul answers that question clearly by showing the importance of faith over ancestry, but there's more that he wants to say:

10 Not only that, but Rebekah’s children were conceived at the same time by our father Isaac.​

Understanding the Jewish mindset is crucial at this point. The non-believing Jews of Paul's day would have had many objections to Paul's teaching, several of which carried over to Jewish-Christians. But not all of them would have. One of them would have been "Why would God be letting the gentiles into the family of God at such a late date? We have been His people for so long, and now the Gentiles get to come in?!?" In verse 9 Paul had finished answering the question of whether God's promises to Israel had failed and beginning with the "Not only that..." in verse 10 he starts to answer the question of why would God be letting the Gentiles in now. And he does it in a striking way. The first thing he reminds them is that both of Rebekah's children (representing all Jews and Gentiles) were conceived at the same time, meaning that yes, all children were Rebekah's and by inference God's. Remember, the Jewish world believes that God created all people but chose only the Jews to be His people. The Gentiles were believed at this point point to be cast out, hated by God.

11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: 12 not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”​

Here Paul slaps them in the face. The Jews believe that God created all mankind but chose them to be special and are now objecting that surely God wouldn't be letting the Gentiles into His family at this late date, they were here first! And Paul uses their own teaching, the very story where they get the idea that they were chosen special to point out that the older will serve the younger. In this case, the older chosen ones, the Jews, may have been serving the younger chosen ones the Gentiles! He's equating the Jews with being older, complaining about the Gentiles being the younger ones, let in at a much later date. Paul is making the Jews the Esau of the story and the Gentiles Jacob. This would have been shocking to Jews, if not downright insulting. You would expect a reaction of "Blasphemy!" or "God is unjust!"

14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses,

“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”
16 It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17 For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.​

Paul isn't using the mercy on whom I have mercy, compassion on whim I have compassion and hardens whom he wants to harden speech as a way of justifying God choosing some over others. On the contrary, following his points above about the Gentiles now being included, Paul here uses the very self-justification language, the very scriptures the Jews of his day used in defense of their "chosen" theology against them. When asked how could a loving God choose to make some people for eternal life (the Jews) and some for eternal death (the Gentiles) zealous Jews would use these kind of scriptures to say God can do what he wants! His ways are higher than our ways, he can harden whom he wants to harden, etc. But Paul's actual point, for those of us who are following along at home is that God doesn't not have mercy on anyone. So Paul is once again using the Jews' own language against themselves to make his point. Another objection comes:

19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” 20 But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’” 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?​

Paul anticipates his audience resigning themselves to questioning that if God really did choose them first only to choose the Gentiles later then how could he blame them for unbelief? His answer, I believe, goes again back to common language they used at that day to justify the opposite position, that they were chosen and the Gentiles were not. And then comes Paul's capstone in this line of thinking, a hypothetical question that Paul doesn't really mean, but uses for its full effect:

22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24 even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?​

Paul's dramatic question even asks, what if the Jews are not only the Esau of the story, carrying this line of thinking all the way out, what if God not only chose the Jews first just so that He could choose the Gentiles later, what if He actually was waiting until the end and the Gentiles were really his people all along and the Jews were the ones that were going to be cast into the eternal fire!!! Now Paul, doesn't really meant this is the case as we'll see in Chapter 11 the Jews can still come back into the fold. But Paul is continuing his theological point by using the very same elitist teaching the Jews had been preaching for so long back on them but in reverse. Must have been a bitter pill.

25 As he says in Hosea:

“I will call them ‘my people’ who are not my people;
and I will call her ‘my loved one’ who is not my loved one,”
26 and,

“In the very place where it was said to them,
‘You are not my people,’
there they will be called ‘children of the living God.’”​

Although Paul reminds the Jews once again of their chosen scriptures and now how they can be turned back against them, he does go on to talk about that not all Jews will be cast out now:

27 Isaiah cries out concerning Israel:

“Though the number of the Israelites be like the sand by the sea,
only the remnant will be saved.
28 For the Lord will carry out
his sentence on earth with speed and finality.”
29 It is just as Isaiah said previously:

“Unless the Lord Almighty
had left us descendants,
we would have become like Sodom,
we would have been like Gomorrah.”​

How is it that this remnant will be saved?

30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone. 33 As it is written:

“See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes people to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall,
and the one who believes in him will never be put to shame.”​

Paul's chapter 9 of his letter to the Romans is not about individual election, or even about corporate election. It's not part of a message about God electing some and not others. Quite the opposite, in fact. Paul instead is using language that already belongs to a theology of election and standing it on its head, using it to stridently refute this teaching of election and instead showing how God loves all people, Jews and Gentiles alike.

You might what to read Piper's work on Roman's chapter 9-

The Justification of God: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Romans 9:1-23

In Him,

Bill

 

[Jack Terrence]

Paul's chapter 9 of his letter to the Romans is not about individual election, or even about corporate election. It's not part of a message about God electing some and not others. Quite the opposite, in fact. Paul instead is using language that already belongs to a theology of election and standing it on its head, using it to stridently refute this teaching of election and instead showing how God loves all people, Jews and Gentiles alike.

Paul's disseration is CLEARLY about the election of individuals.

I say then, has God cast away His people? Certainly not! For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel, saying, 3 “Lord, they have killed Your prophets and torn down Your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life”? 4 But what does the divine response say to him? “I have reserved for Myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” 5 Even so then, at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace. 6 And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace.But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work.

7 What then? Israel has not obtained what it seeks; but the elect have obtained it, and the rest were blinded.

1. Paul invokes his own salvation as an example. That's individual!

2.Then he says that there is an elect number "at this present time." It is a specific number as when God reserved "seven thousand men" for Himself.

3.Then he says that the elect "have obtained" salvation.

 

[clemenslee]

In other words, Paul is not saying God chose "the" Gentiles, but "those who are called from the Gentiles".

In

Except Paul concludes his argument in Romans 9 by saying he's talking about "those who are called, not from the Jews only, but also from the Gentiles"

So, he, himself says that he is not merely saying "God chose the Gentiles, too!" in a generic, all inclusive sense, but rather, "God chose some Gentiles, and some Jews"

In other words, Paul is not saying God chose "the" Gentiles, but "those who are called from the Gentiles".

In fact, I just quoted him verbatim!

Every single "exegesis" I see of Romans 9 always ignores the implications of Paul's words in verse 24

Your statements below completely ignore or contradict the words in verse 24:



You assert here that "This is not a message about God electing some and not others", but as you can see from verse 24, yes it is. If the passage is about "Those who are called, not only from the Jews, but also from the Gentiles", then it is. The phrase "Those who are called "from both groups" refutes your statement that nobody in particular is "called" (chosen).

You said this passage was about how God loves all people (equally), but Paul says this passage is about God's love for "those who are called from the Jews and the Gentiles"

To reiterate:

bleitzel: This passage is about all Jews and all Gentiles, but nobody in particular

The Apostle Paul: This passage is about us who are called, from the Jews, but also from the Gentiles

Who is verse 25-26 talking about?