Romans 9, neither Calvinist nor Arminian

[bleitzel]

In a recent thread, TaylorSexton and I were close to starting a rabbit trail, so we decided to start this thread instead:

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 theyounger. 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 in reverse. Must have been a bitter pill.

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.

 

[Job8]

True enough. Romans 9 has been misapplied and misinterpreted to assert that God chooses to save some, thereby choosing to condemn others to Hell. Pharaoh had numerous opportunities to repent, but when he persisted in hardening his heart, God hardened it eventually. The same applies to the Jews who rejected Christ. They had ample opportunities to repent and be saved. But they resisted the Holy Spirit again and again.

 

[Received]

In a recent thread, TaylorSexton and I were close to starting a rabbit trail, so we decided to start this thread instead:

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 theyounger. 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 in reverse. Must have been a bitter pill.

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.

tl;dr right now (tired, etc.), but you should add Jeremiah 18 to the mix.

 

[TaylorSexton]

I hope to reply to this in full at some point in the next few days, but for now, upon a first reading of your interpretation, I have to admit I come away absolutely confounded. I must say that I stand corrected, however: what you present is completely new to me, but it is only because I have never read such an absurd interpretation in my life. There are perhaps little nuggets of truth strewn about. This interpretation is not new, but seems to me to be absolutely unique. Lest you think it a compliment, such an utterly unique interpretation of any passage is certainly never a good thing, mind you. In essence and summary, you take a passage that is talking about X, then say, "It's not talking about X," and then call that an exegesis. For example, you end the discussion by saying (and this is probably the most baffling part):

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.

Really? This remarkable claim (and it is absolutely remarkable!) is not supported by even a shred of this passage. Does not Paul himself say, "When Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth) it was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated"?

Like I said, I will respond to this in full in the coming days. Perhaps somebody else will chime in in the meantime. Suffice it to say that, even upon a straight reading of your interpretation, it already has massive flaws, such as the statement mentioned above and your allegorization of Jacob and Esau (Where in the text did that come from? What about Pharaoh?), your failure to discuss how the mystery of Christ plays into the framework of this passage, and your strange choice not to at least mention chapters 10 and 11, which certainly play a vital role in interpreting chapter 9—just to name a few. Part of the issue is that you don't begin, as any proper exegesis should, with an adequate discussion of the context. You just simply say, "Romans 1-8 talks about this, this, and this (without any substantiation or defense, mind you), and now we are in Romans 9, so here we go." Intriguingly, you give all of Romans 1-8 the courtesy of not even an entire sentence!

I look forward to responding further, brother (which, in all actuality, it may be days before I have something with which I am satisfied). As for now, I must sleep.

 

[Gregory the NonTheologian]

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.

Perhaps somebody else will chime in in the meantime.

I might be mistaken, but I don't think there is any evidence that any of the early Church Fathers believed in predestination in the Calvinist sense. I assume that you are referring to predestination when you refer to "this teaching of election", but I might be mistaken.

 

[bleitzel]

I might be mistaken, but I don't think there is any evidence that any of the early Church Fathers believed in predestination in the Calvinist sense. I assume that you are referring to predestination when you refer to "this teaching of election", but I might be mistaken.

You're completely right, the early church fathers had nothing in mind like the election taught by reformation scholars and today's Calvinists (and Arminians) and even maybe Augustine.

It's funny though, you'll notice one of the immediate allegations is that this is something new, hehe

 

[bleitzel]

I might be mistaken, but I don't think there is any evidence that any of the early Church Fathers believed in predestination in the Calvinist sense. I assume that you are referring to predestination when you refer to "this teaching of election", but I might be mistaken.

Oh, and by "this teaching of election" I mean the modern day teaching that the Bible teaches that some are predestined by God to be saved and some are not. It's the some are not part that is un-scriptual. (And no, I'm not arguing for Universalism.)

 

[ZacharyB]

... upon a first reading of your interpretation, I have to admit I come away absolutely confounded ... it is only because I have never read
such an absurd interpretation in my life.

Get used to it ... Christian forums are filled with 'em!
Some people on these forums are:
-- ignorant of Scripture
-- minions of Satan
-- too proud to admit they've been wrong
etc.

 

[bleitzel]

Hi Taylor. We'll take as much time as we need over the next days and weeks, I'm in no rush. In your response you've mentioned several logical objections and a couple emotional ones. The logical objections might be summarized:

1. You enbolden the middle part of verse 11, indicating that you think this the most important part of the sentence
2. You disagree with my assertion that Paul reverses the roles of Jacob and Esau
3. You argue that I don't present an explanation for Paul's use of Pharaoh
4. You state that I don't mention how the mystery of Christ plays into this
5. You say I do not even address chapters 10 and 11
6. And that I give Romans 1-8 only a cursory half sentence.

In regards to items #5 and 6, the rest of Romans you said that your time is limited and mine is too. I don't believe much of the Bible directly supports the primary underlying tenet of Calvinism (and Arminianism but I'll stick to only using Calvinism references throughout to save space) that God predestined some to eternal life and some not. The "some not" just aren't there in scripture. Paul doesn't talk about them. I believe that some would argue Romans 9 stands for this idea, that's the reason for this thread. But I don't think anyone would argue that anything in Romans 1-8, much less 10 or 11 stand for any idea that there are some that are un-chosen. Romans 11 argues the complete opposite, that God has given everyone access to the vine (himself) and that everyone can graft themselves out of the vine or back into it through their belief. Much of Paul's other writings are also like this (as we'll see in the mystery of Christ in a minute) but just about the only passage that Calvinists can use to posit the idea that there are some un-chosen ones is Romans 9. I was focusing on it because I think it's your strongest case.

What is the mystery of Christ? (Item #4) I'm glad you asked. Paul states it clearly, Eph 3:6 "This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus." Paul believes one of the greatest mysteries that has now been solved is that the Gentiles are no longer cast out from the family of God. Anyone who knows anything about being a Jew knows that they have always believed they are God's children and the Gentiles are not. Do you know any Jews? Paul says that the great mystery, how could an all loving God create some children he loves and some he does not is solved! God does love all his Children! He chose the Jews to be his direct sons and daughters, but he chose everyone else to be his adopted sons and daughters! Mystery solved.

For item #3, Pharaoh, the asnwer is the same as item #2, Jacob and Esau. And I'll be brief. Paul's new revelation of how God did actually include all people as his children has opened Paul's eyes to all the old Jewish stories of God's choosing them. And he now sees how they can all be reversed to make his point. Paul says the Jews are like Esau now, not Jacob and the Jews are like Pharaoh too! This must have been hard for them to hear! Let's look at verse 11 in your quote:

...This remarkable claim (and it is absolutely remarkable!) is not supported by even a shred of this passage. Does not Paul himself say, [Not only that] "When Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth) it was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated"?

First, I added the bracketed section. You left it out but I think it is essential. Then, if you notice, the translation you copied inserted parentheses around the very section you want to emphasize. Parentheses are used for denoting side items, items for enriching a point, not the main point.

The main point of the passage Paul is stating is the end, "the elder shall serve the younger." Paul has switched his focus in this verse. Earlier in chapter 9 (see verse 6) Paul had been addressing the question of whether God's promises to Israel had failed. He walks through the idea that God's promises are for anyone who believes in God for Israel is measured by those who believe and like he says in Romans 11 we can graft ourselves into and out of belief.

But now he's switching to another objector's question: Why would God be letting the Gentiles in at such a late date? That's why the "Not only that" is essential to understanding Paul in Romans 9. If you follow an explanation that doesn't zero in on this transition text it's probably not a good explanation. Paul's statement at the end of verse 11 "the elder shall serve the younger" is the answer to this objector's question. What if, you Jews, what if God actually planned for you to go through these centuries of relationship with God so that he could let the Gentiles in later? What if you Jews are actually the elder in this case and the Gentiles are the younger? Does that offend you (and it certainly did). The rest of Romans 9 is Paul's scoffing at this haughtiness of the Jews. They thought they were so special, but they disdain Gentiles, despise them. That's why Paul asks them, who are you to talk back to God? What if God made you to be the lowly chamber pot and the Gentiles are actually the cherished wine jug? What if? Paul is not saying that is the case, just trying to get his Jewish brethren to back off their pride for a minute.

 

[bleitzel]

Get used to it ... Christian forums are filled with 'em!
Some people on these forums are:
-- ignorant of Scripture
-- minions of Satan
-- too proud to admit they've been wrong
etc.

Hey Zach, I don't know if you have a beef with Taylor but I don't think calling anyone ignorant or a proud minion of Satan is the way to go about it. Especially not on a Christian forum?

 

[bleitzel]

True enough. Romans 9 has been misapplied and misinterpreted to assert that God chooses to save some, thereby choosing to condemn others to Hell. Pharaoh had numerous opportunities to repent, but when he persisted in hardening his heart, God hardened it eventually. The same applies to the Jews who rejected Christ. They had ample opportunities to repent and be saved. But they resisted the Holy Spirit again and again.

Amen! The Gospel is really a simple message. We don't need to add anything to it (like God only chooses to save some.)

 

[expos4ever]

however: what you present is completely new to me, but it is only because I have never read such an absurd interpretation in my life.

If I understand at least the basic thrust of the OP, this view (or at least a close relative to it) is put forward by respected theologian NT Wright. He (Wright) argues that any "election" that is on the table in Romans 9 is certainly not the election of individual persons to an ultimate destiny. While there can be perhaps legitimate disagreements about some things in this chapter, and more broadly in the chapter 9 to 11 block, it is clear that the issue here is the status of the nation of Israel and how God has brought the Jew and Gentile together in redemption history.

To see Romans 9 as endorsing a theology of individual election, without reference to the mysterious history of Israel and the fulfillment of prophecies about the ingathering of the Gentiles is almost the textbook definition of ignoring context.

 

[ZacharyB]

Hey Zach, I don't know if you have a beef with Taylor but I don't think calling anyone ignorant or a proud minion of Satan is the way to go about it. Especially not on a Christian forum?

No beef with Taylor ... no idea who he is.

 

[Hammster]

And the LORD said to Moses, "When you go back to Egypt, see that you do before Pharaoh all the miracles that I have put in your power. But I will harden his heart, so that he will not let the people go. - Exodus 4:21

This came before Pharoah ever hardened his own heart. God didn't just decide to harden it because Pharoah had already done so. No, God did it because He has mercy on whom He has mercy.

God raised Pharoah up to show His power. From start to finish, God was in control. I can look at Romans 9 and see that at face value. Those who hold to a reformed viewpoint do not need to dissect and marginalize the text. Those who hate what it says will continue to say that it doesn't say what it says, and that Paul meant something different.

 

[bleitzel]

No beef with Taylor ... no idea who he is.

Oh. So, was your post directed at me?

 

[bleitzel]

If I understand at least the basic thrust of the OP, this view (or at least a close relative to it) is put forward by respected theologian NT Wright. He (Wright) argues that any "election" that is on the table in Romans 9 is certainly not the election of individual persons to an ultimate destiny. While there can be perhaps legitimate disagreements about some things in this chapter, and more broadly in the chapter 9 to 11 block, it is clear that the issue here is the status of the nation of Israel and how God has brought the Jew and Gentile together in redemption history.

To see Romans 9 as endorsing a theology of individual election, without reference to the mysterious history of Israel and the fulfillment of prophecies about the ingathering of the Gentiles is almost the textbook definition of ignoring context.

Very good! The election that Paul is talking about he re in Romans 9 and also in Ephesians 1 is the dismantling of the then currently held Jewish concept of election. They thought it was a some-chosen-some-not-chosen paradigm but Paul was showing no, it's an all-are-chosen one.

 

[bleitzel]

And the LORD said to Moses, "When you go back to Egypt, see that you do before Pharaoh all the miracles that I have put in your power. But I will harden his heart, so that he will not let the people go. - Exodus 4:21

This came before Pharoah ever hardened his own heart. God didn't just decide to harden it because Pharoah had already done so. No, God did it because He has mercy on whom He has mercy.

God raised Pharoah up to show His power. From start to finish, God was in control. I can look at Romans 9 and see that at face value. Those who hold to a reformed viewpoint do not need to dissect and marginalize the text. Those who hate what it says will continue to say that it doesn't say what it says, and that Paul meant something different.

EXACTLY Hammster! The Jews have/had always taught that Pharoah was the bad guy and they were the good guys. That God saved them from Pharoah. But now, Paul was saying that the JEWS were like Pharoah, hardened by God, and he was saving the Gentiles! Can gou believe it?!

 

[expos4ever]

Very good! The election that Paul is talking about he re in Romans 9 and also in Ephesians 1 is the dismantling of the then currently held Jewish concept of election. They thought it was a some-chosen-some-not-chosen paradigm but Paul was showing no, it's an all-are-chosen one.

I agree; even though Paul continually addresses the Jew-Gentile issue in Romans and elsewhere, this dimension of his thinking appears to have been squashed out over the course of history and we tend to "universalize" Pauline texts that clearly do draw important distinction between Jew and Gentile. Romans 9 to 11 hinges on this distinction and we ignore this at our exegetical peril.

Prime among these - and perhaps you will not agree with me - is Paul's repeated denial of "justification (or salvation by works". Such statements are not about "good works" in the general sense. No, the works he repudiates so often are the works of the Law of Moses, and in particular with their function as marking the Jew as distinct from the Gentile. So, I suggest, when Paul says "works don't justify", this is a coded way of saying justification is not a uniquely Jewish privilege.

 

[expos4ever]

EXACTLY Hammster! The Jews have/had always taught that Pharoah was the bad guy and they were the good guys. That God saved them from Pharoah. But now, Paul was saying that the JEWS were like Pharoah, hardened by God, and he was saving the Gentiles! Can gou believe it?!

I don't think Hammster shares your theology - I believe he (or she) subscribes to a theology of personal election to a final state. And from what I have gleaned from you, I think you believe otherwise.

 

[bleitzel]

I agree; even though Paul continually addresses the Jew-Gentile issue in Romans and elsewhere, this dimension of his thinking appears to have been squashed out over the course of history and we tend to "universalize" Pauline texts that clearly do draw important distinction between Jew and Gentile. Romans 9 to 11 hinges on this distinction and we ignore this at our exegetical peril.

Prime among these - and perhaps you will not agree with me - is Paul's repeated denial of "justification (or salvation by works". Such statements are not about "good works" in the general sense. No, the works he repudiates so often are the works of the Law of Moses, and in particular with their function as marking the Jew as distinct from the Gentile. So, I suggest, when Paul says "works don't justify", this is a coded way of saying justification is not a uniquely Jewish privilege.

No, actually I do agree with you, as far as youvd gone. Paul's use of works is referring to the law! But I also think the faith vs works debate is not serious, we have role to play, its repentance/humbling which is also not a work. Its not a zero sum game as Calvinists wouod argue, that salvation is either of God alone or man alone. Its By God, but through our faith. And faith is not a work.