This is who Paul is writing to: 6 And you also are among those Gentiles who are called to belong to Jesus Christ. 7 To all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be his holy people:
This letter is not going to Jews only. Gentiles are definitely being included and maybe mainly addressed in chp. 9-11 yet there are no gentiles addressed in Gods promises to the nations of Israel other than Israel being a blessing to all nations which is not part of this discussion.
The reason Paul a Jew is mainly addressing the Gentiles is Rm 1: 13 in order that I might have a harvest among you, just as I have had among the other Gentiles.
Paul does address Jewish Christians (called to be his holy people) with Rm. 2: 17 Now you, if you call yourself a Jew And we see some are still calling themselves Jews and are following the Law and they are teaching others (gentiles) to follow the Law: Rm. 2:20 an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of little children, because you have in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth 21 you, then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself?
This would be a huge problem for Gentile Christians and the Church in Rome so Paul is addressing this issue throughout this letter. The three biggest issues will be: circumcision, the food requirements and Sabbaths, that the gentiles just cannot follow. This is dividing the Church in Rome and Paul is the right person to address this huge problem.
When did Paul change his style of writing in Romans and when did he change back to the style he was using? Why would Paul confuse us with this change especially, since there appears to be no change.
This is not a question, it is a statement: 6 It is not as though Gods word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel.
Paul has been asking rhetorical questions and giving lengthy explanations answering those questions (That is the style you agreed Paul is using).
How is that a follow up question, since it is not addressed as a question but a factual statement?
if it is a follow up question the first quetion must have been answered, so Paul would be addressing this follow up question!
The Jewish are not going to have any problem with what Paul says in 1-5 nor do I see the Jewish Christians having any problem with what Paul says in verse 6, since they are the ones that have been kicked out of the synagogue by their fellow Jews, since they are Christians. Paul is stating that not all Jews (speaking about those that refuse Christianity) are really Israelites. Im sure the Jewish Christians in Rome where upset with some of the Jews in Rome that were persecuting them and felt those Jews might be lost and Paul is saying they can be, so what is the problem the Jewish Christians would have with what Paul said?
On the other hand, would the Gentile Christians have a problem with this dissertation by Paul on how God has blessed the Jewish race?
No not at all! Both of these brothers are a contrast between a Jewish individual and a gentile individual. The Jews would never identify themselves or a fellow Jew with a gentile, so Paul would need to use two Jews if he wanted to present the message you describe. The Gentile Christians would see themselves as being Ismael and Esau (gentile individuals) and the Jewish Christians would see themselves as being Isaac and Jacob (Jewish individuals) and that is what Paul wanted them to see
.
Every Gentile would have a problem with the apparent prejudice of God toward the Jews (in fact you sometimes even hear that today). What do you mean This isn't the problem that Paul is addressing, when did he stop addressing this huge problem in the Roman letter?
The Jews have no problem being the chosen ones. (Do people in the USA have a problem being part of the most powerful nation on earth?) Can citizens of other nations have a problem with USA citizens?
The problem with the Jews being Gods privileged group would be a much bigger problem for the Gentiles then we USA citizens give other nations today.
That is the big issue in the entire letter to the Romans and the fact that this apparently special select group of Gods people are speaking with authority (they feel God has given them, since they are special) and teaching the Gentiles they must obey the Jewish Law.
First off: Paul did not even giving that statement as a question. Gods word has not failed the Jewish Christians nor the gentile Christians being addressed, so where is the problem for them?
The problem is with the Jews that have not accepted so it appears that it has failed that group, but what affect might that understanding have for the gentiles Christians in Rome being pushed by Jewish Christians to follow the Law?
Think about it: that statement might encourage and help the Gentiles to realize that Christianity is not a Jewish designed doctrine that fits perfectly the Jewish culture and upbringing. Many Jews that follow the Jewish Law (these Jewish Christians are pushing on them) are not easily become Christians themselves, so who is better off (Gentiles or Jews) when it comes to becoming a good Christian?
Esau is a gentile and Jacob is a Jew, huge difference, the Old and new Covenant are not being pushed in Pauls discussion.
Does Gods will through history and up to this time in Rome seem to favor the Jews or the Gentiles?
The us cannot be Israel since with a good conscience they cannot ask: Then why does God still blame us? God can certainly blame the Jews, since God has given them everything, especially compared to the gentiles.
This letter is not addressed to the Israelites NOT coming to Christ so they cannot be one of you. Paul through most (if not all) of the letter is trying to encourage and support the Gentile Christians and put down what the Jewish Christians are trying to push on the gentile Christians. Paul presents himself as the Apostles to the gentiles and he wants to help convert more Gentiles in Rome as stated in chapter one, but Paul also hopes, as stated later, that bring more Gentiles into being Gods people might cause the Jews to join.
There was absolutely nothing wrong with the Old Covenant while it existed and the two covenants did not exist together, since when the New Covenant came it replaced the Old Covenant, so the young new covenant come out of the Old covenant and the Old covenant is completed and has no value. As you can see that does not fit the potter analogy at all.
What you are describing is all of Israel starts out as one nation (a pot) and then some accept the new covenant and some do not accept it as of yet, so you have one pot leaving the potters house, becoming two pots (one for an honorable purpose and the other for a common purpose) with the honorable purpose being those that accept the New Covenant and the other pot sticking to the Old Covenant, but it is Pauls hope that some all of this common pot will become the other special pot?
Not all the Jews rejected Christ and crucified Christ. They were prepped by the whole OT that would continue to be the only Bible they had for years and John the Baptist had come to the Jews to help prepare them and all the Jews (the masses) accepted John.
How can you say: Jews who did not believe is the stumbling stone? Are the Jews stumbling over themselves or are the unbelieving Jews stumbling over something else?
I never suggested there was any preference for the Gentiles over the Jews, but just as the Jews had an advantage in some way to accept the Gospel over the Gentiles, the Gentile had some advantage over the Jews, so they are even. It is no boondoggle for the Gentiles, since they have a huge life change to go through, lack all that Old Testament knowledge, and did not have John the Baptists teaching to help prepare them.
Paul explained this by allowing the gentiles to come in and make the Jews jealous.
Ishmael and Esau are both individual Gentiles.
Pharaoh is an individual gentile.
These three references come before the potter analogy. After we have:
Rm 9: 24 even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?
Rm 9: 25 I will call them my people who are not my people
Rm 9: 30 That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness
Where is it ever suggested in Romans the Gentiles are looking down upon the Jews that believe. The problem is: the Gentiles are looking up to the Jewish Christians too much, in that Jews seem to be following Gods moral code as God seems to want the gentiles to do (circumcision, the food laws and Sabbaths), they know a lot more about God and were they chosen by God (special vessels).
How does one pot (the Jewish nation) that is a wonderfully made under the Old Covenant suddenly become two pots when the New Covenant comes in? The one pot as it is being made can be marred and a new pot is made, but not two pots?
You also have the problem of how those that are made one way can change to the other way, which Paul is saying can happen with the Jews that are now in a lost state?
Would the potter let anything leave his shop that was meant to be destroyed (did they make clay pigeons in the first century)? Under my scenario either pot (common or special) can become marred (prepared now for destruction like any marred pot) while out in the world and so those marred pots which would make the artist (Potter [God]) very upset and those would be the pots he would want destroyed.
We do need to understand how to define or translate the Greek words Paul uses in Romans 9. Paul uses a very similar analogy in 2 Tim 2: 20 with exactly the same words and there is no way a rich persons house would be displaying clay pigeons, but we can understand the word to mean common vessel, since they would be common vessels in the rich persons house along with special vessels. To look how the author defines and uses the words in other places is to help define the word in verses we are addressing, which is all good hermeneutics.
Upvote
0
