Paul's teaching in Romans 9

[Open Heart]

You are making it; “complex and counter-intuitive”.

Paul is saying the sinfulness (our selfishness/coveting our being in the “flesh”) already within everyone both Jew or gentile is brought out by the Law for the Jews. Paul does not suggest it is the “Law” that makes us fleshly, but it is our being fleshly that gives us “our sinful passions”, so it is the Law that exposes or arouses our sinful passions.

Yes. We are aroused to realization.

 

[bling]

I heartily agree, but with one very important caveat. Two points

1. I agree that I may not have been clear as I should have been that it is the "fleshly" nature within everyone that is the seat, or source, of our sinful passions. If I gave the impression that the Law created these passions, that was a big mistake on my part.

2. However, I would stick with Paul on the distinction between "arouse" and "reveal". This is my caveat to what you say since I am not sure whether you see "arouse" as meaning the same thing as "expose". These two concepts are quite different and while Paul certainly thinks the Law "exposes" our sin (makes us aware of it), he also believes the Law strengthens and arouses our sinful passions.

You are pulling a lot out of Ro. 7 which may not be there. You might want to look up and study (more than just google) “historic present tense”. For the most part Mark’s Gospel was written in the “historic present tense” which gives support to it being sent out from Rome. All Roman victories had monuments on every street corner not only in Rome put other Roman cities, some have been preserved and below each monument was a dramatic victory story in “historic present tense”. Paul writing to the Romans describing his own battle with sin and a dramatic victory at the end would fit the pattern for using the historic present tense.

I have no problem with God setting the sinner up to sin even more with the “Law” or with anything else. The “Law” cannot cause a sinner to stop sinning more, if so there would be little need for the indwelling Holy Spirit. The person under the Law is a sinner and the person not under the Mosaic Law is a sinner no matter how much or how little they sin.

The problem is not with the quantity of sin, but the fact the sinner has not turned to humbly accept God’s help (Charity). The Law did not make Jews sinners, but really showed them how needy they were and it even increased that need through “causing” them to sin all the more, but again do not blame the Law, since it was to draw Jews to God’s mercy and forgiveness through their not being able to obey the Law.

God does not want people to sin, but “not sinning is not man’s objective”, so can sin even help some to turn and humble accept God’s grace (forgiveness)? If sinning or even more sinning could help even some than would God allow sin?

You seem to be suggesting (correct me if I am wrong) God is setting the Jews with the Law, so they will crucify the Messiah?

I see the “Law” making it more difficult for the leadership to do what their fleshly hearts wanted them to do, so they had to really search for a way to murder Jesus. The multitude of Jews (those under the Law) held Him to be from God and accepted Jesus like they accepted John the Baptist, so the Jewish leadership had a huge work around. The “law” was not drawing the Jews in to wanting to crucify Jesus, but the fact Jesus challenged the corrupt Jewish Leadership caused them to want to kill Jesus. The Jewish leadership swayed the multitude and the multitude swayed the Romans, but this has nothing to do with the “Law”.

 

[bling]

I am not sure how you can say this given the introduction:

1I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit, 2that I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart. 3For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, 4who 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, 5whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.
6But it is not as though the word of God has failed.

While Paul does not directly say "here in this chapter, I will explain that God has indeed been faithful to His promises", I think that the above forces us to infer this. Why? Israel is presently in a bad state and yet she was given all the covenant promises. That is what verse 1 - 5 tell us. They are about the state of Israel to whom so many promises were made -adoption as sons, glory. In fact Paul explicitly identifies promises:

4who 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,

Give the sad state of Israel, and these promises that God made to her, what promises do you think are on Paul's mind when he writes this?:

6But it is not as though the word of God has failed.

Are you going to deny that the "word of God" is not a way of saying "the promises God has made". When I say "I keep my word", that is equivalent to "I keep my promises".

How can Paul not be saying that God has kept His promises to Israel and I am about to explain why?

Again, you ignore the context.

Paul throughout Romans is using diatribes to teach both the Jews (who would be extremely familiar with Diatribes) and the gentile (who by chp. 9 would now be catching on to Paul’s teaching method).

We were in agreement that for the most part Chp. 9-11 was especially written for the gentile, so what did Paul get across to the Gentiles in 9-11 using many diatribes?

As I stated and can show with examples in Romans the diatribe question will first be support by the logic for a positive answer with the negative logic presented afterwards (there can be a “No” right after the question sometimes).

Can we agree “14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust?” is a diatribe question with “not at all” being given afterwards?

If verse 14 is a diatribe question you should fine (being consistent with all of Romans) logical support before and/or after the question for a “yes” answer which in the case would be: “God has been unjust in the way he has treated the Gentiles as compared to the Jews”.

What shows God favoring the Jews over the gentile? How about : 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.

Paul says he would give up his own salvation for the Jews, but he did not say that about the gentiles, so is even Paul showing favoritism toward the Jews with verse 2-3?

Paul lists out the promises give the Jews and not the gentiles so is the not showing God’s favoritism toward the Jews?

Paul says: “It is not as though God’s word had failed”, that word went to the Jews and not the gentiles, so is God showing favoritism toward the Jews?

Paul goes on in verse 7-13 showing God to be “unjustly” favoring the Jewish descendants of Abraham, so it seems God is being “unjust”, but that is what Paul and others do when using the diatribe teaching method.

 

[expos4ever]

You are pulling a lot out of Ro. 7 which may not be there. You might want to look up and study (more than just google) “historic present tense”.

My views on Romans 7 are based on the ideas of respected New Testament scholar NT Wright - it's probably quite unlikely that a renowned scholar would make a mistake on matters of tense. It's always possible of course, but as I am sure you can understand, I do not really have the time to do this anyway.

For the most part Mark’s Gospel was written in the “historic present tense” which gives support to it being sent out from Rome. All Roman victories had monuments on every street corner not only in Rome put other Roman cities, some have been preserved and below each monument was a dramatic victory story in “historic present tense”. Paul writing to the Romans describing his own battle with sin and a dramatic victory at the end would fit the pattern for using the historic present tense.

What is your point? We both know that Romans 7 transitions from past tense to present tense. Wright argues that Romans 7 is Paul's analysis of the plight of the non-believing Jew living under the Law of Moses using himself as a representative example (hence the "I"). The past and present tenses reflect the fact that the Jew struggled with the Law in the past yet continues to do so in the present (i.e. at the time of Paul writing Romans).

The problem is not with the quantity of sin, but the fact the sinner has not turned to humbly accept God’s help (Charity). The Law did not make Jews sinners, but really showed them how needy they were and it even increased that need through “causing” them to sin all the more, but again do not blame the Law, since it was to draw Jews to God’s mercy and forgiveness through their not being able to obey the Law.

I have been clear - I am not blaming the Law.

God does not want people to sin, but “not sinning is not man’s objective”, so can sin even help some to turn and humble accept God’s grace (forgiveness)? If sinning or even more sinning could help even some than would God allow sin?

My argument is what it is - God intentionally magnifies sin in Israel to set up what happens at the cross.

You seem to be suggesting (correct me if I am wrong) God is setting the Jews with the Law, so they will crucify the Messiah?

No. Please see post 82, I believe what I am saying is quite clear.

 

[bling]

My views on Romans 7 are based on the ideas of respected New Testament scholar NT Wright - it's probably quite unlikely that a renowned scholar would make a mistake on matters of tense. It's always possible of course, but as I am sure you can understand, I do not really have the time to do this anyway..

I do not want to have a one way discussion with some “scholar”, they never address my questions. There is no “mistake” in the tense (it is present tense), but done for dramatic affect (this is like a sport’s report giving you the blow by blow fight analysis of an old fight in the present tense).

What is your point? We both know that Romans 7 transitions from past tense to present tense. Wright argues that Romans 7 is Paul's analysis of the plight of the non-believing Jew living under the Law of Moses using himself as a representative example (hence the "I"). The past and present tenses reflect the fact that the Jew struggled with the Law in the past yet continues to do so in the present (i.e. at the time of Paul writing Romans)..

I see it as much more personal and being Paul’s personal struggle with sin that he had in the past (really describing when he first understood what coveting was (around age 12) with the victory coming with Jesus and the indwelling Holy Spirit (chp 8).

My argument is what it is - God intentionally magnifies sin in Israel to set up what happens at the cross.


No. Please see post 82, I believe what I am saying is quite clear.

You need to look at my post 166 to see how I refute your scriptural interpretation of Paul’s letter.