Romans 9

[gmm4j]

Romans 9
Romans chapter nine is probably the most pointed to chapter by Calvinists as definitive evidence for unconditional election. At first glance there are verses that can seem to support these claims. However, upon a closer contextual examination along with a proper understanding of the argument being presented, it becomes clear that Paul is not making the argument for unconditionally electing some individuals over others, but is instead making the point that God can justifiably choose to save both Jew and Gentile through the condition of faith rather than saving based on being born into the natural lineage of Abraham.

Choosing to elect individuals based on faith rather than by natural lineage, birth order, or the keeping of the Law does result in specific individuals being elect / saved, but the election of specific individuals is not the argument that is being presented.

Let us consider the overall context of Paul’s letter to the church at Rome. A brief outline of the letter is as follows:

Chapter 1:1-15 Introduction
Chapter 1:16-17 Righteousness from God
Chapters 1:18-3:20 Unrighteousness of all people including Jews
Chapters 3:21-5:21 Righteousness from God through faith
Chapters 5:1-8:39 Unrighteousness contrasted with God’s gift
Chapters 9:1-11:36 God’s means of righteousness justified: Rejection of Israel
9:1-29 The justice of the rejection
9:30-10:21 The cause of the rejection
11:1-10 The rejection is not total
11:11-24 The rejection is not final
11:25-36 God’s ultimate purpose is mercy
Chapters 12:1-15:13 Righteousness practiced
Chapter 15:14-33 Conclusion
Chapter 16 Commendation and greetings

Note the overall theme of the letter to the Romans is God’s gift of righteousness by faith; who the gift is for, its benefits, and the justification for God providing righteousness the way He has.

Romans 9:1-5
I speak the truth in Christ-I am not lying, my conscience confirms it in 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 brothers, those of my own race, 4 the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption as sons; 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 Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.

Paul begins Chapter nine by stating his deep anguish over Israel’s refusal to come to faith in Christ. In context, Paul is not addressing an individual’s election or salvation, but instead he is sharing his desire for Israel to understand that they must not depend on their lineage or the Law for salvation.

Romans 9:6-7
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 natural children who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring.

Paul is confronting the Jewish misconception that, if his gospel is correct, it would mean that God’s promises to the Jews had failed.

He responds by saying that God’s promises have not failed because not all of Israel is Israel. True Israel will still inherit the promises, but true Israel becomes Israel through faith (Isaac, Jacob and Moses) and not merely through human descent. The argument is not that God predestines specific individuals to heaven and hell, but rather that God has and will pass over the unrighteous firstborn (Ishmael, Esau, Jews) in favor of the younger brother (Isaac, Jacob, gentiles), who is made righteous by faith.

9 For this was how the promise was stated: "At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son."

Abraham had to have faith for the child of promise.

10 Not only that, but Rebekah's children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. 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.”

14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all!

The question of injustice becomes, “Is God unjust to elect Jacob on the grounds of faith, while passing over firstborn Esau because he had no regard for God?” Not at all! God elects on the grounds of faith. Even if you could use these verses to say that God elects certain individuals over others, the argument is that He does so based on faith and not works. It also does not take into account God’s foreknowledge, and Jacob and Esau’s freewill choices. God elected Jacob before the twins were born and before they had done anything either good or bad, but God certainly foresaw that Esau would despise the birthright while Jacob would value it (Genesis 25). Jacob lived by faith while Esau relied on his own skill. It is not unjust for God to call us to faith and to elect based on faith rather than natural lineage or birth order.

Romans 9:14-16
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 man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy.

Your natural lineage and your righteous efforts do not matter. You can desire to be righteous and work at being righteous all you want, but God has chosen to have mercy upon those who simply trust Him. God has the right to choose whomever He wills to be among His covenant people and by what means they may enter that covenant. Paul is making this argument because the Jewish mindset for the condition to be included in the covenant had shifted from national Israel and following the Law, to anyone (Jew or Gentile) who comes to Christ in faith.

 

[gmm4j]

The statement, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion" mayseem to be saying that God arbitrarily chooses to save some and not others, but this is not the case. The Old Covenant quote comes from Exodus 33:19, which directly follows the golden calf incident of chapter 32. God chose Moses over firstborn Aaron. It was not an arbitrary choice, but it was based on Aaron’s sin in forming the golden calf and Moses’ desire to seek the Lord.

Exodus 33:17-20
And the LORD said to Moses, "I will do the very thing you have asked, because I am pleased with you and I know you by name." 18 Then Moses said, "Now show me your glory." 19 And the LORD said, "I will cause all my goodness to pass in front of you, and I will proclaim my name, the LORD, in your presence. I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. 20 But," he said, "you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live."

Certainly God will have mercy on whom He desires, but this is not arbitrary or unconditional. God repeatedly gives us scriptural examples of whom He has mercy upon.

Psalms 119:132
Turn to me and have mercy on me, as you always do to those who love your name.

Proverbs 28:13-14
He who conceals his sins does not prosper, but whoever confesses and renounces them finds mercy. 14 Blessed is the man who always fears the LORD, but he who hardens his heart falls into trouble.

Isaiah 55:7
Let the wicked forsake his way and the evil man his thoughts. Let him turn to the LORD, and he will have mercy on him, and to our God, for he will freely pardon.

Matthew 5:6-8
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled. 7 Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy. 8 Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.

James 4:6
"God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble."

Next, Paul presents Pharaoh as an example of one whom God hardened. It is important to understand when Scripture says that God hardened someone’s heart it means that He simply gives that person over to the consequences of his own free will. If God has mercy on those who seek Him, who does God harden?

Romans 1:21-24
For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. 24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts…

2 Timothy 3:13
evil men and impostors will go from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived.

God hardens the hard hearted. God did not directly deposit a hard and stubborn heart into Pharaoh and then systematically harden it without Pharaoh’s knowledge or will. The Bible clearly states that Pharaoh hardened his own heart while God provided the impetus for resistance.

Exodus 8:15
But when Pharaoh saw that there was relief, he hardened his heart and would not listen to Moses and Aaron, just as the LORD had said.

Exodus 9:34
When Pharaoh saw that the rain and hail and thunder had stopped, he sinned again: He and his officials hardened their hearts.

Scripture shows us that what the Lord actually did was confront Pharaoh through Moses and the plagues. Pharaoh then responded of his own free will by refusing or “hardening his heart” toward Moses’ demands. So, Pharaoh hardened his own heart, in the sense that he chose his responses, and the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart, in the sense that He provided the impetus for Pharaoh to respond as he did. In much the same way, we may say a person made us angry, when in fact, the person merely provided the impetus for us to become angry; we were the ones who responded in anger. Likewise, Paul points out later in chapter nine (vs 32,33) that God has also provided an impetus for Israel to become hardened by giving them Christ, in whom they must have faith in order to be saved. This became a stumbling stone for many.

17 For the 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."

God raised Pharaoh up. God bore with great patience this object of wrath. God positioned him, and gave him great power and authority even though he was one whom God knew would never believe or trust in Him.

If Paul’s argument is true, then natural national Israel would feel like Pharaoh in the sense that they had been raised up for the purpose of God displaying His power through them, yet left without His mercy. God’s mercy is not upon national Israel for natural Isreal’s sake. God has chosen to have mercy upon spiritual Israel by faith, and God has the right to choose to apply His righteousness in this manner; upon the condition of faith in Christ, but they have rejected it. But, God has used them and was going to continue to use them anyway.

Again, Paul is making this argument because the Jewish mindset for the condition to be included in the covenant had shifted from national Israel and following the Law, to anyone (Jew or Gentile) who comes to Christ in faith. Natural Israel could say, but we’ve been used in all the ways listed in verses 4 and 5, and yet you are telling us that we stand condemned if we don’t trust in this Jesus whom you preach? Yes.

18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden. 19 One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?"

So, the objection in verse 19, One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?"is not about God irresistibly hardening them and then blaming them. The objection is: why does God hold us accountable when our rejection and hardening of His means of mercy actually served His purpose by increasing His glory and making Himself known among the nations? It is similar to the objection raised in Romans 3:7, “Someone might argue, "If my falsehood enhances God's truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?"

 

[gmm4j]

20 But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?'"20 But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him 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 noble purposes and some for common use?

At this point Paul employs the potter and clay imagery which draws from Jeremiah 18. The context of Jeremiah 18 and Isaiah passages that refer to the potter and clay image clearly indicate that the “clay” is not passive. God uses them for His purposes according to their choices. God would still use the Jews for His purposes, but they would be used for common uses rather than the noble uses He desired had they had faith and been obedient.

God intended noble purposes for them, but they could not be fulfilled due to their rebellion and rejection of God’s plan. Instead, God molded them within their own rebellion and they had no right to object to God using them this way. Much like God used Pharaoh to bring about His glory, God, despite Israel’s continual rejection of Him and His righteous provision in Christ, continued to send the Messiah through Israel in order to gain a people of faith that He would raise up for noble uses. Interestingly, in another of Paul’s epistles, 2 Timothy 2:20-21, Paul tells us that a person’s choices determine what kind of uses he is prepared for.

2 Timothy 2:20-21
In a large house there are articles not only of gold and silver, but also of wood and clay; some are for noble purposes and some for ignoble. 21 If a man cleanses himself from the latter, he will be an instrument for noble purposes, made holy, useful to the Master and prepared to do any good work.

22 What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath-prepared for destruction?

Who are the objects of His wrath? The answer is, those who do not receive His mercy by faith. John 3:18, Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.

Yes, God patiently bears with these whom He knows will never trust Him, and He uses even them to display His glory.

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?

So, just as Pharaoh’s hardening was the result of his rejection of God, the Israelites have also experienced a hardening in part due to their rejection of God’s chosen means of righteousness through faith in Christ. However, also like Pharaoh, Israel’s rejection and subsequent hardening actually served to further God’s purpose. God’s name would be proclaimed among the gentiles and His glory would be more fully displayed by the inclusion of the gentiles as His covenant people through faith in Christ. Both Jew and gentile are called to faith.

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, "It will happen that in the very place where it was said to them, 'You are not my people,' they will be called 'sons of the living God.'" 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."

Paul goes on to use additional Old Covenant texts to support the argument he was presenting. God reserves the right to say “not my people” to those who were formally His people, and call them “my people” who were formally cut off from the benefits of God’s covenant people. “My people” are those who receive the promise through faith in Christ (both Jew and gentile) and “not my people” are those who reject Christ (both Jew and gentile). The remnant is always a remnant by faith.

Here’s the very important conclusion to this portion of Paul’s argument:

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 Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. 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 men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame."

Romans 9:30-33 sums up Paul’s argument by drawing the distinction between the people of God and those rejected by God being based on those who have faith and those who do not.

This whole argument has been about natural Israel trying to obtain righteousness through the Law and natural lineage versus pursuing righteousness by faith. Nothing is said about the unconditional election of individuals in Paul’s conclusion, because this was not what Paul had been discussing in the chapter. Then, as you continue to read Romans chapters 10 through 11, this interpretation explained above gains support while the Calvinist’s view of election weakens.

Here’s how Chapter 10 opens: The same theme is being continued.

Romans 10:1-4
Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved. 2 For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. 3 Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness. 4 Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.

It is by faith in Christ that you are saved, not by your efforts to live by the Law.

Romans 10:6-13
6 But the righteousness that is by faith says:… …8 But what does it say? "The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart," that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: 9 That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. 11 As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame." 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, 13 for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."

Then moving into Chapter 11… Here is the Pharaoh argument again:

Romans 11:15-24
15 For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?…. ….18 do not boast over those branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19 You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in." 20 Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either. 22 Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. 23 And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.

You are a recipient of mercy or wrath based upon whether or not you trust in God’s righteousness. You are used for noble or ignoble purposes based upon whether or not you trust in God’s righteousness. This is Paul’s argument.

 

[gmm4j]

I’ve been asked, (by File13 in Ask a Calvinist)

How can it be foreseen faith if Paul clearly says that it's God who chose for God's purpose because God called them?

It can be foreseen faith when Paul clearly says that it is God's choice for His own purpose because He called them to faith and He definitely foresees who will believe.

Where is the indication that His choice has anything to do with either their faith or their works here?

It does not have anything to do with works. A man’s works cannot save him. We are saved by faith, not works and faith is not a work. This is where it says He chooses based on faith: Romans 9:30-32 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works.

God chooses to make righteous those who come to Him by faith; it is not based on natural lineage or works.

Why do you think Paul would get so defensive if God's decision is based on foreseen faith and/or works?

You lump together faith and/or works and this should not be. Faith is not a work. This is what Paul is arguing in this chapter. Is there injustice on God’s part by making righteousness come through faith rather than lineage, birth order, or works? By no means! He will have mercy on whom He wants to have mercy and He makes it very clear upon whom He has chosen to have mercy – Those who have faith! Certainly God will have mercy on whom He desires, but this is not arbitrary or unconditional. God repeatedly gives us scriptural examples of whom He has mercy upon.

What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.(Romans 9:14-18 ESV)

What is even possibly unjust about God looking forward in time and seeing those who will believe (and/or do good works) that would prompt Paul to immediately go here?

Again you’ve lumped good works in with faith. It would have been an “unjust” offence to the Jewish mindset that believed they were already righteous and God’s children due to their natural lineage and works. That is what prompted Paul to go here J. He was showing that God was perfectly justified in choosing to bring righteousness through the means of faith in Christ.

Moreover, if you believe in libertarian free will, how can you have faith without exercising your human will? But if faith takes an exercise of free will, why does Paul deny this is a factor? Finally, why would Paul say emphasis that His mercy or justice applies to whomever He wills if it's based on foreknowledge of a future act that is ultimately out of God's hands given libertarian free will?


Paul denies the factor of free will in God’s choice to have mercy, and make righteous, based on faith. This decision is based solely and completely upon His will. Human will or exertion did not effect and cannot change the fact that God has chosen to have mercy upon those who have faith rather than upon those who have been simply born of Abraham’s natural lineage, their birth order, or their efforts in keeping the Law. Again, Paul’s argument is that God has sovereignly chosen to make individuals righteous based on faith. You can desire to be righteous and work at being righteous all you want, but the only way you are going to get it is by faith in His righteous provision of Christ. This is His choice. This is what He has called us to – Faith.

But wait, there's more!


You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?(Romans 9:19-24 ESV)


Why would Paul expect the objection "who can resist His will?" if it was based on foreknowledge of the persons faith (and/or good works) and not solely on the basis of God's decree?

Because he just raised the point that God can use vessels of wrath (Pharaoh, natural Israel) for His glory. If we are bringing Him glory and He is using us for His purposes, why does He still find fault with us? Paul is raising these questions in light of God using condemned natural Israel to bring about His glory. Their rejection of God’s means of righteousness is already assumed. This is not about the Potter making people reject Him and making others accept Him, but it is about the justness of God condemning people He uses for His purposes.

Just wondering, are you arguing that God wills people to irresitible unbelief, sin and destruction before Adam or anyone has done either good or bad? Sounds a little hyper.

Finally, if it's based on foreknowledge of faith (and/or works), why would Paul ever bring up the idea of "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?"

To show that natural Israel, although they will be used, they will ultimately will be destroyed due to unbelief. Romans 11:23 And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.

 

[bling]

I think individual Jewish Christians and individual Gentile Christians are being addressed in Romans 9, but as different groups. The individual would be asking Paul this about the other individuals.

Paul uses two teaching methods that are taught in secular philosophy classes and are used even in secular classes as the best example of these methods. Paul does an excellent job of building one premise on the previous premises to develop his final conclusions. 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”. These “questions or comments” are given by an “imaginary” student making it more a dialog with the readers (students) and not just a “sermon”.


The main question in Romans 9 Paul addresses is God being fair or just Rms. 9: 14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all!


This will take some explaining, since just prior in Romans 9, Paul went over some history of God’s dealings with the Israelites that sounds very “unjust” like “loving Jacob and hating Esau” before they were born.


Who in Rome would be having a “problem” with God choosing to work with Isaac and Jacob instead of Ishmael and Esau?


Would the Jewish Christian have a problem with this or would it be the Gentile Christians?


If God treaded you as privileged and special would you have a problem or would you have a problem if you were treated seemingly as common and others were treated with honor for no apparent reason?


That is what is at issue and Paul will explain over the rest of Romans 9-11.


Paul is specific with the issue Rms. 9: 19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?”


Who is the “one of you” is this Jewish Christian (elect) or Gentile Christian (elect) or is this “non-elect” individual with this “letter” is being written to non-Christians?


Can Jews say they cannot be blamed for failing in their honored position or would it be the Gentiles that would say they cannot be blamed since they were not in the honored position?


Is it really significant in what really counts, if you are born a gentile or Jew in the first century in Rome?


Are there issues and problems with being a first century Jew and was this a problem for Paul?


The Jews were created in a special honorable position that would bring forth the Messiah and everyone else was common in comparison.


How do we know Paul is specifically addressing the Jew/Gentile issue? Rms. 9: 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.


Paul is showing from the position of being made “common” vessels by God the Gentiles had an advantage over the born Israelites (vessels of honor) that had the Law, since the Law became a stumbling stone to them. They both needed faith to rely on God’s Love to forgive them.


Without going into the details of Romans 9-11 we conclude with this diatribe question: Romans 11: 11 Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12 But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their full inclusion bring!


The common vessels (gentiles) and the vessels of honor (Jews) are equal individually in what is really significant when it comes to salvation, so God is not being unjust or unfair with either group.


If there is still a question about who is being addressed in this section of Rms. 9-11, Paul tells us: Rms. 11: 13 I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I take pride in my ministry 14 in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them.



Rm 9: 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?

This verse is not saying all the “vessels” created for a “common purpose” was created for destruction (they were not made from the start “clay pigeons&#8221. Those vessels for destruction can come from either the common group or the honor group, but God is being patient with them that will eventually be destroyed. The vessels God does develop great wrath against, will be readied for destruction.

To understand this is Common vessels and special vessels look at the same idea using the same words of Paul in 2 Tim 2: 20.

 

[BBAS 64]

Free mp3 on Roman 9 to share

Opens in a new window...

http://mp3.aomin.org/JRW/Romans9.mp3

And in the written form:

Romans 9 Transcript (Part I of II)

Enjoy!

 

[cygnusx1]

Romans 9 deals with a very real problem , how can God not save the Jews and uphold His promises to them ? The answer is election , unconditional election , the context is all about salvation else why would Paul wish himself cut off from Christ if it meant the Jews were SAVED .

HOW can God favour the Jews then not save them ?

So Paul demonstrates God makes a difference , God selects even amongst Jewish twins !

This unfolding of Gods sovereignty brings the expected objection , and objection that is totally unfounded if God treats all based upon some merit of their own , vessels of wrath and vessels of mercy amplifies salvation is at stake , For those who imagine election in Romans 9 is reduced to only Jews , it isn't , Paul says not us Jews only but Gentiles too are elected .

Does Romans 9 stand alone as teaching election and predestination of believers unto salvation ? No many scriptures align with Romans 9 , the Jewish question is advanced into a question about their future (Romans 11 ) with God saying in future He will save them , the nation will have their hardening removed , they will see God banish ungodliness from Jacob.

 

[Skala]

If one's understanding of Paul's teaching in Rom 9 on God's choice of one individual over another doesn't cause them to object the same way Paul anticipated, then they are understanding the chapter wrongly.

However, if your view of election causes people to object the way Paul expects you to object, then that means your view of election is accurate and is what Paul intended to teach.

Does Arminianisms conditional election cause people to question God's fairness and justice the way Paul thought it would? No.
Does Calvinisms view of election cause people to question God's fairness and justice the way Paul thought it would? Yes

 

[Shulamite]

If one's understanding of Paul's teaching in Rom 9 on God's choice of one individual over another doesn't cause them to object the same way Paul anticipated, then they are understanding the chapter wrongly.

However, if your view of election causes people to object the way Paul expects you to object, then that means your view of election is accurate and is what Paul intended to teach.

Does Arminianisms conditional election cause people to question God's fairness and justice the way Paul thought it would? No.
Does Calvinisms view of election cause people to question God's fairness and justice the way Paul thought it would? Yes

Exactly. I have found, in my own personal experience, that I am met with the same response Paul was when I present the Gospel according to Romans 9. (and so have all who have presented the gospel as Paul did according to Romans 9. It will be met with anger and objection)

 

[gmm4j]

Exactly. I have found, in my own personal experience, that I am met with the same response Paul was when I present the Gospel according to Romans 9. (and so have all who have presented the gospel as Paul did according to Romans 9. It will be met with anger and objection)

I know Jewish people who have been offended when told that not all Israel is Israel, and that righteousness doesn't come by keeping the Law or because they are of the natural lineage of Abraham.

 

[Shulamite]

I know Jewish people who have been offended when told that not all Israel is Israel, and that righteousness doesn't come by keeping the Law or because they are of the natural lineage of Abraham.

I understand... however, the truth is an offense. The Gospel is an offense. The cross is an offense. Paul once asked his hearers, "Am I now become your enemy because I speak the truth to you?"

Apparently, Romans 9 offended his hearers. They objected to Paul and they were not happy with Paul. Paul, however, was only delivering what was given to him by the Lord. That is why the objection in Romans 9 is made and anything else pertaining to the truth.

If a particular truth of the Lord is an offense to a believer, then the Lord simply has not chosen to reveal it to their understanding yet (we all learn in stages and precept upon precept) and If it's an offense to the unbeliever (or one not called and chosen), then they won't believe, no matter what, because only the Lord calls them to. He alone grants understanding to His own word.

 

[gmm4j]

I understand... however, the truth is an offense. The Gospel is an offense. The cross is an offense. Paul once asked his hearers, "Am I now become your enemy because I speak the truth to you?"

Apparently, Romans 9 offended his hearers. They objected to Paul and they were not happy with Paul. Paul, however, was only delivering what was given to him by the Lord. That is why the objection in Romans 9 is made and anything else pertaining to the truth.

If a particular truth of the Lord is an offense to a believer, then the Lord simply has not chosen to reveal it to their understanding yet (we all learn in stages and precept upon precept) and If it's an offense to the unbeliever (or one not called and chosen), then they won't believe, no matter what, because only the Lord calls them to. He alone grants understanding to His own word.

The truth being revealed in Romans 9 is that righteousness is by faith in Christ, not through keeping the Law, natural lineage, or birth order. This is what offended Jewish mindset.

 

[cygnusx1]

The truth being revealed in Romans 9 is that righteousness is by faith in Christ, not through keeping the Law, natural lineage, or birth order. This is what offended Jewish mindset.

Romans 9 is about that which upsets Paul not the Jews being offended or upset

 

[themuzicman]

Romans 9 is about that which upsets Paul not the Jews being offended or upset

What offends Paul is the claim that the Word of God failed with respect to the Israelites, and Paul spends the next three chapters explaining why this is not the case. Certainly he does lament for Israel, who, corporately, are not coming to Christ as the Old Testament promised. But the chapter is about the argument that the Word of God failed as a result (see v.6)

The key element in all of this is to remember that Paul is speaking about the nation of Israel and not about individuals. As we see in verse 7, there are a subset of Israel who are "children of the promise", which becomes the basis for the explanation.

After this, the analogies of Jacob/Esau and Pharaoh simply explain the fate of those in Israel who are not of the promise, contrasted with those Jews who are.

Thus we wind up with pots prepared for wrath (Jews still in the Old Covenant), and the pot prepared for glory (Jews in the New Covenant.)

And at no point does this become about the election of individuals, nor is this discussion directly about any Gentile, although Paul notes that the Gentiles do join the "children of the promise", and warns them that they can be broken off just as the Jews were. But even this is not a reference to individuals, but to Gentile believers corporately.

 

[bling]

What offends Paul is the claim that the Word of God failed with respect to the Israelites, and Paul spends the next three chapters explaining why this is not the case. Certainly he does lament for Israel, who, corporately, are not coming to Christ as the Old Testament promised. But the chapter is about the argument that the Word of God failed as a result (see v.6)

The key element in all of this is to remember that Paul is speaking about the nation of Israel and not about individuals. As we see in verse 7, there are a subset of Israel who are "children of the promise", which becomes the basis for the explanation.

After this, the analogies of Jacob/Esau and Pharaoh simply explain the fate of those in Israel who are not of the promise, contrasted with those Jews who are.

Thus we wind up with pots prepared for wrath (Jews still in the Old Covenant), and the pot prepared for glory (Jews in the New Covenant.)

And at no point does this become about the election of individuals, nor is this discussion directly about any Gentile, although Paul notes that the Gentiles do join the "children of the promise", and warns them that they can be broken off just as the Jews were. But even this is not a reference to individuals, but to Gentile believers corporately.

Been a while Muzicman:

You dropped our previous discussion with a lot of unanswered questions I left you with.


Individual Jewish Christians and individual Gentile Christians are being addressed in Romans 9, but as different groups. The individual would be asking Paul this about the other individuals.


Paul uses two teaching methods that are taught in secular philosophy classes and are used even in secular classes as the best example of these methods. Paul does an excellent job of building one premise on the previous premises to develop his final conclusions. 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”. These “questions or comments” are given by an “imaginary” student making it more a dialog with the readers (students) and not just a “sermon”.



The main question in Romans 9 Paul addresses is God being fair or just Rms. 9: 14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all!



This will take some explaining, since just prior in Romans 9, Paul went over some history of God’s dealings with the Israelites that sounds very “unjust” like “loving Jacob and hating Esau” before they were born. (Again Esau and Jacob are individuals).



Who in Rome would be having a “problem” with God choosing to work with Isaac and Jacob instead of Ishmael and Esau?



Would the Jewish Christian have a problem with this or would it be the Gentile Christians?



If God treaded you as privileged and special would you have a problem or would you have a problem if you were treated seemingly as common and others were treated with honor for no apparent reason?



That is what is at issue and Paul will explain over the rest of Romans 9-11.



Paul is specific with the issue Rms. 9: 19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?”



Who is the “one of you” is this Jewish Christian (elect) or Gentile Christian (elect) or is this “non-elect” individual with this “letter” is being written to non-Christians?



Can Jews say they cannot be blamed for failing in their honored position or would it be the Gentiles that would say they cannot be blamed since they were not in the honored position?



Is it really significant in what really counts, if you are born a gentile or Jew in the first century in Rome?



Are there issues and problems with being a first century Jew and was this a problem for Paul?



The Jews were created in a special honorable position that would bring forth the Messiah and everyone else was common in comparison.



How do we know Paul is specifically addressing the Jew/Gentile issue? Rms. 9: 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.



Paul is showing from the position of being made “common” vessels by God, the Gentiles had an advantage over the born Israelites (vessels of honor) that had the Law, since the Law became a stumbling stone to them. They both needed faith to rely on God’s Love to forgive them.



Without going into the details of Romans 9-11 we conclude with this diatribe question: Romans 11: 11 Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12 But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their full inclusion bring!



The common vessels (individual gentiles) and the vessels of honor (Individual Jews) are equal in what is really significant when it comes to salvation, so God is not being unjust or unfair with either group.



If there is still a question about who is being addressed in this section of Rms. 9-11, Paul tells us: Rms. 11: 13 I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I take pride in my ministry 14 in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them.




Rm 9: 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?


This verse is not saying all the “vessels” created for a “common purpose” was created for destruction (they were not made from the start “clay pigeons”). Those vessels for destruction can come from either the common group or the honor group, but God is being patient with them that will eventually be destroyed. The vessels God does develop great wrath against, will be readied for destruction.


To understand this is Common vessels and special vessels look at the same idea using the same words of Paul in 2 Tim 2: 20.

 

[cygnusx1]

What offends Paul is the claim that the Word of God failed with respect to the Israelites, and Paul spends the next three chapters explaining why this is not the case. Certainly he does lament for Israel, who, corporately, are not coming to Christ as the Old Testament promised. But the chapter is about the argument that the Word of God failed as a result (see v.6)

The key element in all of this is to remember that Paul is speaking about the nation of Israel and not about individuals. As we see in verse 7, there are a subset of Israel who are "children of the promise", which becomes the basis for the explanation.

After this, the analogies of Jacob/Esau and Pharaoh simply explain the fate of those in Israel who are not of the promise, contrasted with those Jews who are.

Thus we wind up with pots prepared for wrath (Jews still in the Old Covenant), and the pot prepared for glory (Jews in the New Covenant.)

And at no point does this become about the election of individuals, nor is this discussion directly about any Gentile, although Paul notes that the Gentiles do join the "children of the promise", and warns them that they can be broken off just as the Jews were. But even this is not a reference to individuals, but to Gentile believers corporately.

Seeing as the vast majority of the Jews denied Christ and rejected the Gospel , it stands to reason Paul a fellow Jew would be extremely upset , especially knowing first hand how blind he had been ... Paul's answer , given to him by The Lord , is election , not of him that wills but of God who shows mercy , the expected objection is very current today .... If God decides who gets mercy and who gets justice then THAT isn't fair ..... But Paul just closes ranks and says A man is just that , he shouldn't quiz God as if he is Gods equal , there isn't an equal dual free independent zone between God and man , for example like nations , instead God raised up Pharoah to display Gods judgement .

We also see election is of individuals , otherwise the objection Paul expected would have been rejected along the lines of "but you misunderstand , God isn't selecting individuals just the Church " such recent views are hardly in the text because they just don't work , they are read back into the text and make Paul's argument null and void.

Same goes for those bent on reading back into the text "no salvation" just office or gifts etc .... It makes Paul's expected objection evaporate , "look guys you have it all wrong it's only an office nothing heartbreaking like salvation , don't know why I felt the way I did in verse one " .......

 

[cygnusx1]

The ground of election isn't faith , before the twins were even born before they had done anything good or bad ....

 

[themuzicman]

Been a while Muzicman:

Individual Jewish Christians and individual Gentile Christians are being addressed in Romans 9, but as different groups.

False. The nation of Israel, and more specifically whether God's promises to the nation of Israel are being adressed.

[quote] The individual would be asking Paul this about the other individuals.
[/quote]

Again, false, as the promises are made to the nation of Israel.

Paul uses two teaching methods that are taught in secular philosophy classes and are used even in secular classes as the best example of these methods. Paul does an excellent job of building one premise on the previous premises to develop his final conclusions. 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”. These “questions or comments” are given by an “imaginary” student making it more a dialog with the readers (students) and not just a “sermon”.

Which is fine.

The main question in Romans 9 Paul addresses is God being fair or just Rms. 9: 14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all!

Well, the first question being answer is in 9:6, and that is set up by Romans 9:1-5, where Paul talks about the nation of Israel.

But this is a follow up question.

This will take some explaining, since just prior in Romans 9, Paul went over some history of God’s dealings with the Israelites that sounds very “unjust” like “loving Jacob and hating Esau” before they were born. (Again Esau and Jacob are individuals).

And they are an analogy to the two groups Paul sets up out of the nation of Israel in the previous verse.

Who in Rome would be having a “problem” with God choosing to work with Isaac and Jacob instead of Ishmael and Esau?

No one. This isn't the problem that Paul is addressing. He's using them as an example to answer the problem posed in verse 6.

Would the Jewish Christian have a problem with this or would it be the Gentile Christians?

Again, neither, as both have no issue with God choosing to fulfill the covenant to Abraham with whomever He chooses. That's the point of choosing this example. Well, part of the point.

If God treaded you as privileged and special would you have a problem or would you have a problem if you were treated seemingly as common and others were treated with honor for no apparent reason?

That's not at issue, here.

That is what is at issue and Paul will explain over the rest of Romans 9-11.

That's laughable, as the question isn't who feels slighted, but rather whether the Word of God failed with respect to the promises given to Israel. See verse 6, cf 4,5. That's what precedes the analogy of Jacob and Esau, and Paul wants to make a specific point, that being "the elder shall server the younger", which is the pattern for the New and Old Covenants with respect to Israel.

Paul is specific with the issue Rms. 9: 19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?”

Ah, but who is "us"? "Us", again, is Israel. Paul just spoke of them after they broke Covenant, and God threatened to wipe them out and start over with Moses, only to change His mind when Moses objected. God's statement to Moses is "I will have mercy upon whom I have mercy..." That's a reference to the nation of Israel. Not individuals.

Who is the “one of you” is this Jewish Christian (elect) or Gentile Christian (elect) or is this “non-elect” individual with this “letter” is being written to non-Christians?

The letter is written to both. However, this particular passage deals with God's faithfulness to His Word, as there is some issue with Israel NOT coming to Christ as a whole, in spite of the promises by God made to them.

Can Jews say they cannot be blamed for failing in their honored position or would it be the Gentiles that would say they cannot be blamed since they were not in the honored position?

Neither. The answer to the question is found in the pot/potter analogy which is drawn from Jeremiah, which also refers to the nation of Israel, although in this case there are two pots, just as there are two groups from Israel referred to in v7-8, and two people analogizes in Jacob and Easu.

The objection is to Israel being given the Old Covenant and being God's people, and then not receiving the promises given to them. Again, see vv4-6.

And, as such, Israel, which as a whole has remained in the Old Covenant is part of the pot prepared for wrath, and the remnant (as we will see them called in Romans 11:1-7) are the pot prepared for glory, through whom the promises were kept.

How does this fit into the Jacob/Esau analogy?

The younger (new) covenant is superior to the older (old) covenant, and God has chosen to bring salvation to those in the New Covenant, and wrath to those in the Old. Just as the younger brother is preferred (loved) and the older rejected (hated.)

Is it really significant in what really counts, if you are born a gentile or Jew in the first century in Rome?

Yes and no. Since the Jews were specifically blinded to their messiah so that they would crucify Him, being a Jew at that time was not a good thing, since they would be stuck in the pot prepared for wrath. It has nothing to do with being in Rome and more to do with being a Jew.

Are there issues and problems with being a first century Jew and was this a problem for Paul?

If one wasn't a believer, and was a Jew, then one was part of the nation of Israel that wouldn't receive the promises made to Israel.

The Jews were created in a special honorable position that would bring forth the Messiah and everyone else was common in comparison.

And yet they were the pot prepared for wrath because they rejected Him.

How do we know Paul is specifically addressing the Jew/Gentile issue? Rms. 9: 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.

Again the issue for the Jews who did not believe is the stumbling stone. That's the focus of 9-11. They were the ones to have promises made and they weren't fulfilled.

Paul is showing from the position of being made “common” vessels by God, the Gentiles had an advantage over the born Israelites (vessels of honor) that had the Law, since the Law became a stumbling stone to them. They both needed faith to rely on God’s Love to forgive them.

False. We can see from verse 24 that those Jews who believed are joined by the Gentiles, and thus there isn't a preference of Gentiles over Jews, but rather a boondoggle for Gentiles who get to come into the New Covenant with the Jews who believed and did receive what was promised.

Without going into the details of Romans 9-11 we conclude with this diatribe question: Romans 11: 11 Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12 But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their full inclusion bring!

Paul is addressing a matter of including the remnant (vv1-7) with the Gentiles, that the Gentiles should not exclude or push aside the Jews who do believe.

But, in the end "in this way, all Israel is saved." In what way? In the way that the remnant Jews are saved, all Israel, Israel of the promise, is saved.

The common vessels (individual gentiles) and the vessels of honor (Individual Jews) are equal in what is really significant when it comes to salvation, so God is not being unjust or unfair with either group.

Sorry, doesn't fit the context. The Gentiles aren't mentioned anywhere in this chapter before the analogy of the pots comes up. The analogy is for the two groups in Israel.

If there is still a question about who is being addressed in this section of Rms. 9-11, Paul tells us: Rms. 11: 13 I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I take pride in my ministry 14 in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them.

And the reason he addresses the Gentiles is that they are not to exclude or look down upon the Jews who do believe, because they ARE the remnant that the Gentiles join in the New Covenant.

Rm 9: 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?


This verse is not saying all the “vessels” created for a “common purpose” was created for destruction (they were not made from the start “clay pigeons”). Those vessels for destruction can come from either the common group or the honor group, but God is being patient with them that will eventually be destroyed. The vessels God does develop great wrath against, will be readied for destruction.

Sorry, but the pot/potter analogy comes from Jeremiah, which is speaking of the entire nation of Israel. Only now there are two pots, one for wrath, the other for glory. It all fits together very nicely when you get the topic of discussion right.

To understand this is Common vessels and special vessels look at the same idea using the same words of Paul in 2 Tim 2: 20.

We don't need to refute this context with another context. What we have here is clear.

 

[themuzicman]

The ground of election isn't faith , before the twins were even born before they had done anything good or bad ....

Of course, Paul isn't talking about their salvation, but rather through whom the covenant would come, so this has no relevance to salvation and election.

 

[cygnusx1]

Of course, Paul isn't talking about their salvation, but rather through whom the covenant would come, so this has no relevance to salvation and election.

The context is salvation , only those who have an axe to grind remove the context