Individual salvation is not the subject of Romans 9

[janxharris]

Paul, in his conclusion of this chapter, says (vv. 30-33):

What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone. As it is written: “See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes people to stumble and a rock that makes them fall, and the one who believes in him will never be put to shame."

Since some Jews did obtain righteousness through faith, Paul is not talking about individuals but about Israel and the Gentiles in a general sense - God would now work through the Gentiles (in general) rather than Israel. Jesus explicilty alludes to this watershed moment in Matthew 23:38,39 when his reproof of the Jewish religious leadership reaches its climax:

Look, your house is left to you desolate. For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’

When Paul says in his letter to the Romans, 'What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all!' (v.14), Jacob's eternal salvation (as an individual) is not in view but rather whether God's choice of Israel (the nation), through whom Christ would come, was unfair. Individual salvation is dealt with elsewhere in Paul's letter, but not here.

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

Jacob was elected rather than Esau - elected to be the one through whom Jesus would come. God hated Esau in the same way that Jesus told mankind to hate their own family (such use being a Jewish idiom):

Luke 14:26
“If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple.

Matthew 19:19
Honor your father and mother. Love your neighbor as yourself.

I admit to being somewhat troubled by the reference to Pharoah from verse 17, but this may be resolved if we consider that, again, Paul is talking about the nation of Egypt rather than specifically Pharoah. Consider 1 Samuel 6:6:

Why do you harden your hearts as the Egyptians and Pharaoh did? When Israel’s god dealt harshly with them, did they not send the Israelites out so they could go on their way?

 

[Skala]

You don't exegete a passage by running away to other passages and grabbing ideas from them and reading them back into the passage in question.

 

[janxharris]

You don't exegete a passage by running away to other passages and grabbing ideas from them and reading them back into the passage in question.

You'd have to put a bit more detail on that.

 

[bling]

Paul, in his conclusion of this chapter, says (vv. 30-33):

What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone. As it is written: “See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes people to stumble and a rock that makes them fall, and the one who believes in him will never be put to shame."

Since some Jews did obtain righteousness through faith, Paul is not talking about individuals but about Israel and the Gentiles in a general sense - God would now work through the Gentiles (in general) rather than Israel. Jesus explicilty alludes to this watershed moment in Matthew 23:38,39 when his reproof of the Jewish religious leadership reaches its climax:

Look, your house is left to you desolate. For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’

When Paul says in his letter to the Romans, 'What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all!' (v.14), Jacob's eternal salvation (as an individual) is not in view but rather whether God's choice of Israel (the nation), through whom Christ would come, was unfair. Individual salvation is dealt with elsewhere in Paul's letter, but not here.

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

Jacob was elected rather than Esau - elected to be the one through whom Jesus would come. God hated Esau in the same way that Jesus told mankind to hate their own family (such use being a Jewish idiom):

Luke 14:26
“If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple.

Matthew 19:19
Honor your father and mother. Love your neighbor as yourself.

I admit to being somewhat troubled by the reference to Pharoah from verse 17, but this may be resolved if we consider that, again, Paul is talking about the nation of Egypt rather than specifically Pharoah. Consider 1 Samuel 6:6:

Why do you harden your hearts as the Egyptians and Pharaoh did? When Israel’s god dealt harshly with them, did they not send the Israelites out so they could go on their way?

You have to look at the whole context (Chp. 9-11 at least), but even the verse you chose would apply to individuals: “…who pursued the law…” does not mean all the Jews but those Jews that pursued the Law as the way of righteousness. Some Jews did not pursue the Law to obtain righteousness, but repented and sought God’s forgiveness (those at the beginning that accepted John’s baptism.

There is a lot of salvation discussed in Romans 9-11 so it is hard to say salvation is not being talked about and we know salvation is for the individual and not by groups so how could this be only about nations.

Also, individuals are being addressed like “one of you…”, Esua, Jacob, Pharaoh, Isaac, and really salvation is individualistic.


I have written a rather long explanation of Romans 9, but bottom line (Rm 9: 14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all!...) God is totally fair and as just as any being could be. Paul is for the rest of Romans 9-11 explaining how God is just/fair even when it seems to humans God is not being just/fair.

Rm 11: 32 For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

The bottom line is it does not matter if you were born Jew or Gentile they both sinned big time and both were judged by their heart condition. We do know there was a “law” written on the hearts of the Gentiles, but the OT scripture is only addressing the Jews with little glimpses of Gentiles (like Nineveh).

As far as Romans 9 this is what I have written as an introduction before:

Verses are pulled out of Romans 9 to support the idea God makes people a particular way so He will save them and makes others a particular way so they will be eternally lost. That is not what is being conveyed by these particular verses.

To best interpret any verse good hermeneutics would have you first understand the context, context, context and context. Who is writing, to whom is he writing, why, where, when is he writing. The questions for Romans 9 would include:

1. Was there a time when Jewish Christians (elect) taught that a good Christian also had to be a good Jew (following especially the dietary requirements, Sabbath and circumcision)?

2. Was there at the same time these Jewish Christians teaching you a good Jew, Christians (elect) teaching you did not have to follow the old Jewish Laws (esp. Sabbath, circumcision, and food)?

3. Was this a significant issue in the first century church, did Paul address this problem in his letters, and when did this problem cease to be a problem?

4. Could there have been and were there Jewish Christians (elect) in Rome at the time of Romans teaching other Gentile Christians (elect) they had to (be circumcised, obey the Sabbath, and/or fool the Old Jewish dietary requirements)?

5. Was Paul’s letter to the Romans written to non-Christians or to some non-Christians (non-elect)?

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 and 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.

We could get into a long discussion of “ honorable and dishonorable vessels” which some equate the dishonorable as being like “clay pigeons” made for destruction, but that is not the best translation of these words. Paul uses the same words conveying the same idea in 2 Tim. 2: 20 In a large house there are articles not only of gold and silver, but also of wood and clay; some are for special purposes and some for common use. 21 Those who cleanse themselves from the latter will be instruments for special purposes, made holy, useful to the Master and prepared to do any good work.

In Tim. Paul talks about these same “dishonorable vessels” in a rich person’s house (definitely not clay pigeons) and these dishonorable vessels (common vessels) can be made “holy” (which fits the Gentiles being made holy).

Those that will be destroyed come from both the common and special vessels that fail to meet their objective.

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.

 

[janxharris]

You have to look at the whole context (Chp. 9-11 at least), but even the verse you chose would apply to individuals: “…who pursued the law…” does not mean all the Jews but those Jews that pursued the Law as the way of righteousness. Some Jews did not pursue the Law to obtain righteousness, but repented and sought God’s forgiveness (those at the beginning that accepted John’s baptism.

I already addressed this. The thrust of this conclusion is not individual salvation. Not sure you have made any point to the contrary.

There is a lot of salvation discussed in Romans 9-11 so it is hard to say salvation is not being talked about and we know salvation is for the individual and not by groups so how could this be only about nations.

The first Christians were Jews but Jesus was emphatically rejected by the Jewish nation and so God is now working through the Gentiles. Where is individual salvation discussed in this chapter?

Also, individuals are being addressed like “one of you…”, Esua, Jacob, Pharaoh, Isaac, and really salvation is individualistic.

Paul is quoting Malachi 1 which clearly refers to Esau (Edom) as a country (vv. 3,4):

but Esau I have hated, and I have turned his hill country into a wasteland and left his inheritance to the desert jackals.” Edom may say, “Though we have been crushed, we will rebuild the ruins.”

Surely you are not suggesting God would hate an individual 'before they were born or had done anything good or bad'?

I have written a rather long explanation of Romans 9, but bottom line (Rm 9: 14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all!...) God is totally fair and as just as any being could be. Paul is for the rest of Romans 9-11 explaining how God is just/fair even when it seems to humans God is not being just/fair.

Yes, God is not unjust in choosing a nation or people through whom He might work. No individual salvation is mentioned here.

Rm 11: 32 For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

True.

The bottom line is it does not matter if you were born Jew or Gentile they both sinned big time and both were judged by their heart condition. We do know there was a “law” written on the hearts of the Gentiles, but the OT scripture is only addressing the Jews with little glimpses of Gentiles (like Nineveh).

As far as Romans 9 this is what I have written as an introduction before:

Verses are pulled out of Romans 9 to support the idea God makes people a particular way so He will save them and makes others a particular way so they will be eternally lost. That is not what is being conveyed by these particular verses.

Agreed.

To best interpret any verse good hermeneutics would have you first understand the context, context, context and context. Who is writing, to whom is he writing, why, where, when is he writing. The questions for Romans 9 would include:

1. Was there a time when Jewish Christians (elect) taught that a good Christian also had to be a good Jew (following especially the dietary requirements, Sabbath and circumcision)?

2. Was there at the same time these Jewish Christians teaching you a good Jew, Christians (elect) teaching you did not have to follow the old Jewish Laws (esp. Sabbath, circumcision, and food)?

3. Was this a significant issue in the first century church, did Paul address this problem in his letters, and when did this problem cease to be a problem?

4. Could there have been and were there Jewish Christians (elect) in Rome at the time of Romans teaching other Gentile Christians (elect) they had to (be circumcised, obey the Sabbath, and/or fool the Old Jewish dietary requirements)?

5. Was Paul’s letter to the Romans written to non-Christians or to some non-Christians (non-elect)?

Not sure where you are going with this.

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”.

Interesting - thanks.

 

[janxharris]

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.

Have already addressed this in OP

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

You are loosing me with this.

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?

I think a problem only arises if someone is given a leg up into heaven.

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 and this “letter” is being written to non-Christians?

A hebrew - they were the ones who were indignant at loosing their chosen status.

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?

The Jews, in a general sense, rejected Jesus and sought righteousness through the law. The blame lies with them. They 'stumbled over the stumbling stone'.

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

No


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.

We could get into a long discussion of “ honorable and dishonorable vessels” which some equate the dishonorable as being like “clay pigeons” made for destruction, but that is not the best translation of these words. Paul uses the same words conveying the same idea in 2 Tim. 2: 20 In a large house there are articles not only of gold and silver, but also of wood and clay; some are for special purposes and some for common use. 21 Those who cleanse themselves from the latter will be instruments for special purposes, made holy, useful to the Master and prepared to do any good work.



In Tim. Paul talks about these same “dishonorable vessels” in a rich person’s house (definitely not clay pigeons) and these dishonorable vessels (common vessels) can be made “holy” (which fits the Gentiles being made holy).

True.

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!

Yep.

 

[rogueapologist]

Paul, in his conclusion of this chapter, says (vv. 30-33):

What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone. As it is written: “See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes people to stumble and a rock that makes them fall, and the one who believes in him will never be put to shame."

Since some Jews did obtain righteousness through faith, Paul is not talking about individuals but about Israel and the Gentiles in a general sense - God would now work through the Gentiles (in general) rather than Israel. Jesus explicilty alludes to this watershed moment in Matthew 23:38,39 when his reproof of the Jewish religious leadership reaches its climax:

Look, your house is left to you desolate. For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’

When Paul says in his letter to the Romans, 'What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all!' (v.14), Jacob's eternal salvation (as an individual) is not in view but rather whether God's choice of Israel (the nation), through whom Christ would come, was unfair. Individual salvation is dealt with elsewhere in Paul's letter, but not here.

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

Jacob was elected rather than Esau - elected to be the one through whom Jesus would come. God hated Esau in the same way that Jesus told mankind to hate their own family (such use being a Jewish idiom):

Luke 14:26
“If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple.

Matthew 19:19
Honor your father and mother. Love your neighbor as yourself.

I admit to being somewhat troubled by the reference to Pharoah from verse 17, but this may be resolved if we consider that, again, Paul is talking about the nation of Egypt rather than specifically Pharoah. Consider 1 Samuel 6:6:

Why do you harden your hearts as the Egyptians and Pharaoh did? When Israel’s god dealt harshly with them, did they not send the Israelites out so they could go on their way?

I wholeheartedly agree that this passage (and book, for that matter) is not about personal salvation, individual election, or any of that nonsense.

It seems pretty clear to me that the context of Romans is a dialectic against the Judaizers within the church. While they wished to constrain Christianity to operate within the confines of the Jewish cultus, the author spends a significant amount of time and mental energy setting the stage to show how God's plan of salvation not only includes the Gentiles over and against the supposed "election" of the Jewish nation, but is even more scandalously (to the Judaizers, at least) something which explodes the boundaries of the Law itself. The author argues that not only does one not have to become a Jew in order to be saved, but also that this expansion of the good news of salvation to all people has always been a part of God's plan, a plan culminated in the work of Christ.

 

[Skala]

I wholeheartedly agree that this passage (and book, for that matter) is not about personal salvation, individual election, or any of that nonsense.

And yet no exegesis to prove it.
That's a bit like going to court with no evidence.

What a shame.

 

[rogueapologist]

And yet no exegesis to prove it.
That's a bit like going to court with no evidence.

What a shame.

Yes, since the "exegesis" that happens around here is SOOOO convincing. I've got much better things to do than play proof-texting war with you.

 

[Skala]

Yes, since the "exegesis" that happens around here is SOOOO convincing. I've got much better things to do than play proof-texting war with you.

it's much harder to exegete text to show how it says what you assert.

Thats why synergists don't do it.

 

[rogueapologist]

it's much harder to exegete text to show how it says what you assert.

Thats why synergists don't do it.

Not really. Exegesis is simple. It's just not worth the bother around here.

 

[Skala]

Not really. Exegesis is simple. It's just not worth the bother around here.

Try us.

 

[rogueapologist]

Try us.

Yawn. Why should I waste my time? I post paragraphs and paragraphs of thoughts about theology, and get only marginal engagement until the final "that's not biblical" pronouncement is handed down.

I challenge engagement on fundamental concepts of philosophy-of-God topics, and only get questions in response to the original questions I pose.

Bothering with exegesis in such a context is just a complete waste of time.

 

[Skala]

Yawn. Why should I waste my time? I post paragraphs and paragraphs of thoughts about theology, and get only marginal engagement until the final "that's not biblical" pronouncement is handed down.

I challenge engagement on fundamental concepts of philosophy-of-God topics, and only get questions in response to the original questions I pose.

Bothering with exegesis in such a context is just a complete waste of time.

Seems to more of a waste of time to just quote scripture in a vacuum, ignoring the authors original intent.

 

[rogueapologist]

Seems to more of a waste of time to just quote scripture in a vacuum, ignoring the authors original intent.

I agree. So why do you and others persist in doing it?

 

[Skala]

I agree. So why do you and others persist in doing it?

Quote me?

 

[janxharris]

Quote me?

..and the OP?

 

[janxharris]

Genesis 25:21-23
Isaac prayed to the Lord on behalf of his wife, because she was childless. The Lord answered his prayer, and his wife Rebekah became pregnant. The babies jostled each other within her, and she said, “Why is this happening to me?” So she went to inquire of the Lord. The Lord said to her, “Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples from within you will be separated; one people will be stronger than the other, and the older will serve the younger.”

Esau did not serve Jacob as an individual (rather Jacob served Esau), but as a nation Edom (Esau) served Israel (Jacob). So in Romans 9, when Paul quotes these verses, he clearly has the choosing of the nation of Israel through whom Christ would come in mind; there is no hint of individual salvation.

Romans 9:10-13
Not only that, but Rebekah’s children were conceived at the same time by our father Isaac. Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

 

[janxharris]

And yet no exegesis to prove it.
That's a bit like going to court with no evidence.

What a shame.

Do show us where we are going wrong please Skala.

 

[rogueapologist]

Do show us where we are going wrong please Skala.

It won't happen. Proving things is only something that other people have to do.