Al I agree with most of what you are saying but might add:The words 'you should believe', as also 'suffer' in Greek (Philipians 1:39) are verbs that will grammatically connect to the proper actor based on their spelling and convey the proper intent that God breathed into Paul.
In this particular case, the phrase in your translation 'you should believe' - is the present, active infinitive - πιστεύειν. The infinitive takes away any sense of past or present tense, thus the label of "infinitive." In essence it means that as long as we're alive, we're expected to do these things.
Were your interpretation how one should read it, that's not the form of the verb that would have been used there. It would have been a passive or middle form of the verb indicating that person was receiving the action. And that word 'should' in your translation implies that the verb used was in the subjunctive mood. But it wasn't. The new king James version does not inject that word, nor does the NASB. I haven't looked at every translation.
The text is quite clear that it is the person (first person singular) who is to believe and suffer, not that he is given the suffering or belief. There is a perfectly grammatical way to say that in Greek without requiring an interpretation of the intent as is sometimes the case in modern English. And in this case, he used the first person form and a pronoun (αυτον) 'he', to emphasize that each individual was expected to perform the action. He didn't grant these things to all or 'you' plural, but to each person.
What we're given are the commands to believe and suffer.
Only if he's an unjust, mocking God. If God gives us commands that we cannot obey and then holds us accountable because he didn't offer the required 'grace' that only he can provide, he's partial and unjust. God argues against that view throughout his scriptures. He's not only just, he calls us to use his standard by which we're to live our life.
If God's standard is that he can ask us to do what we're incapable of doing and then find fault with us when we do not do it, then we are allowed also to use that standard of justice in our lives. Nay, we're COMMANDED to be that arbitrary and unjust.
I am saying just that. If we are born "in sin" - ie; guilty of Adam's sin, and also incapable of obeying God, then he indeed made us that way, and he arbitrarily gives some people the magical power to obey and others he withholds that power. Yet he still holds everyone accountable to the same law.
At least that is how that original sin an magic grace doctrine would have us believe. Paul was not saying that at all. In fact, he was saying that we cannot come to that conclusion because it's absurd.
The vessels come out of the factory all "destined" for honor. They are 'refitted' not created, for dishonor. And that is based on their own obedience, not his predestined design for them to be disobedient. Paul mocked the idea that one would blame God for making him disobedient. He wasn't saying that to question the rationale of making a person out of the gate evil, was something we were not allowed to do, he's already told us that God is impartial. (2:11).
To create some vessels destined for dishonor and some for dishonor, is the very definition of partiality. Thus to read Paul's words as saying God is partial and we're not to question that, is to ignore what was already set up as foundational to his message. (For there is no partiality with God).
When it says that God "hardened Pharaoh's heart" it is the equivalent of saying that Pharaoh was offended by God's words. It is the words themselves and Pharaoh's own mind that hardened Pharaoh's heart. God did not need Pharaoh's heart to be hardened to show his glory. Had Pharaoh let the people of Israel leave Egypt at Moses' first utterance, God's glory would have just as perfectly been demonstrated.
Pharaoh made the choice to be offended and God led the people out of Egypt in SPITE of Pharaoh's refusal.
Just talking about mature adults:
Any one sin at a particular time can be avoided with human efforts, but humans cannot avoid all sins all the time with just their human ability. This still makes them responsible for every sin they commit, but also points out the need for greater than human power. Which can go all the way back to Adam and Eve needing more then what they had, but also brings up the question, is it God’s fault humans were not given the power needed to begin with?
If humans could not be created with this power then there would be a reason for them not to have the power, but that also means there are somethings even God cannot do, impossible things, like: “God cannot just make a clone of Christ, because Christ is not a “made” being and has lived forever, so God cannot just create another.”
Everything is driven by the objective.
God is wanting us to be like Himself in that we have a Godly type Love, since He is Love, we become like He is. The problem is this Love is not instinctive (a knee jerk reaction) and a love like that would be robotic. God cannot force the Love upon us like a shotgun wedding with Him holding the shotgun, so it has to be the result of a free will choice and that choice has to do with our accepting God’s Love in the form of forgiveness as pure charity. “…he who is forgiven much Loves much…”, so understanding and accepting God’s forgiveness of an unbelievable huge debt allows us to automatically gain an unbelievable huge Love (Godly type Love).
Sin itself is not the real problem, since we all sin, but the problem is with humbly accepting God’s forgiveness.
You also heavily talk about Ro. 9 which I have repeatedly taught to adults so here is a brief on it:
Romans 9
Paul uses two teaching methods throughout Romans even secular philosophy classes will use Romans 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 most of the time giving a strong “By no means” and then goes on to explain “why not”. Paul’s method goes beyond just a general diatribe and follows closely to the diatribes used in the individual laments in the Psalms and throughout the Old Testament, which the Jewish Christians would have known extensively. 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 topic repeated extensively in Romans is the division in the Christian house churches in Rome between the Jews and Gentile Christians. You can just look up how many times Jews and gentiles are referred to see this as a huge issue.
The main question (a diatribe 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, but remember in all of Paul’s diatribes he begins before, just after or before and just after with strong support for the wrong answer (this makes it more of a debate and giving the opposition the first shot as done in all diatribes).
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?
This is the 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?”
The Jews were created in a special honorable position that would bring forth the Messiah and everyone else was common in comparison (the Gentiles).
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” were created for destruction (they were not made from the start by the Potter “clay pigeons”). Everything that leaves the potter’s shop is of great quality. 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, but how did they become worthy of destruction since they left the potter’s shop with his mark on them? Any vessel (honorable or common) that becomes damaged is not worthy of the potters signature and He would want it destroyed.
To understand this as Common vessels and special vessels look at the same idea using the same Greek words of Paul in 2 Tim 2: 20. There Paul even points out the common can become the honored vessel.
That is a short explanation, since you really need to study all of Romans especially chapters 9, 10 and 11. Also please look at individual laments in the Psalms and diatribes in general, I really cut those short.
Upvote
0