What is the Message of Romans 9

[1213]

Friends,

I had my understanding of Romans 9 challenged by another member so I thought it would be helpful to open up a discussion on this.
...

If we are speaking of Romans 9:1-5, then I think Paul is just saying he is sorry that some Jews are not loyal to Jesus.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Hello MB,
We can get to these verses, but they do not change Romans9.
Your conclusions did not originate from the text.

Respectively, I am not a Calvinist so I image we see the text quite differently.

 

[expos4ever]

Romans 9 does deal with God’s predestining Israel to be hardened 2000 years ago. But it certainly does not support a general theology of predestination unto heaven or hell for all human beings. It is about what God did to Israel in the ancient past - Romans 9 cannot be used to argue that God predestines some people to be saved and others to be lost.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

@jimmyjimmy
Yeah, you can't actually come to God unless someone ministers to you.

True, but that's not what the text I quoted says. The Father draws (Look up the Greek) a person to Christ, or he is unable to come to Christ.

 

[renniks]

Regarding "Free Will" I find it interesting that John dismisses salvation being a decision of the will...

John 1:12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

So the emphasis on decision is misplaced.

Certainly not. The verse clearly shows free will. First, one receives and believes, then God does all the work of saving. Of course the decision doesn't save anyone, but it is necessary before God will complete the task of salvation.

 

[throughfiierytrial]

Friends,

I had my understanding of Romans 9 challenged by another member so I thought it would be helpful to open up a discussion on this.

If we can make general comments on what we think Paul was wanting to say.

What is the main message and theme.

I think this chapter raises some issues folks struggle with.

A very clearly defined message of predestination can be found in Romans 9.

 

[ICONO'CLAST]

Romans 9 does deal with God’s predestining Israel to be hardened 2000 years ago. But it certainly does not support a general theology of predestination unto heaven or hell for all human beings. It is about what God did to Israel in the ancient past - Romans 9 cannot be used to argue that God predestines some people to be saved and others to be lost.

God has decreed destined and purposed the multitude of sinners who will be saved in Jesus Christ. To deny God's decree is to deny the core of The Bible

 

[Charlie24]

What do you call the difference between saved Israel and national Israel? I call saved Israel which also contains Gentiles as spiritual Israel. The Gentiles are grafted into Israel. Which Israel? Not national Israel.

The olive tree can be represented by the Abrahamic Covenant. Which is the introduction of justification by faith.

The olive tree has holy roots and trunk, the branches are holy because they are fed by the roots. This represents saved Israel in the OT when the nation as a whole served God.

When Jesus came and was rejected by the religious leaders, some, not all the branches were broken off through unbelief. There is a remnant of Jews on the olive tree.

The olive tree is a natural olive tree representing the saved Jews.

Now Paul introduces a Mystery of God, he announces it as a New Covenant. This new covenant has included the Gentile into His kingdom.

Paul likens the gentile believer as a "wild olive branch" that has been now grafted into the natural olive tree.

All the branches on the olive tree are saved, but all are not natural branches, some are wild olive branches. In fact, the majority by far are wild olive branches.

Many have misunderstood the meaning of the olive tree and through that misunderstanding the false teaching of replacement theology was born.

 

[throughfiierytrial]

OK now here is the controversial bit.

What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! 15For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16So then it depends not on human will or exertion,b but on God, who has mercy. 17For 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.” 18So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills....
21Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory...

I suggested that Judas was appointed to dishonour...

Now... I can hear a chorus of voices saying 'naughty naughty' for thinking that...

However I think that our theology to a large degree is a reflection of our concept of God.

Paul had a radical encounter with Him which would have left deep impressions of His Holiness, Awe, Otherness...

I have had several encounters that have deeply impressed on me the Fear of Him, the Purity of Him, He is the Final Word...

He has the prerogative to do as He wills and we are not to judge.

When you have encounters of this nature you have less issue embracing the God of the OT with the Jesus of the NT.

This intense 'Terrible Love' is our Saviour without compromise, without error, both gentle and unyeilding, forever Just.

Putting it out there...

Comments please.

Judas was predestined for destruction according to the Scriptures...both OT and NT...
John 17:12:
While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled.

Psalm 109 testifies of Judas and the curse God pronounces on him.
Acts refers to this Psalm...

Acts 1:20: ‘For,’ said Peter, ‘it is written in the Book of Psalms:

‘“May his place be deserted;
let there be no one to dwell in it,”
and,
‘“May another take his place of leadership.”

Zechariah 11:14-17:

(surely this refers to Judas the bad and foolish shepherd)
Then I broke my second staff called Union, breaking the family bond between Judah and Israel.

15 Then the Lord said to me, ‘Take again the equipment of a foolish shepherd. 16 For I am going to raise up a shepherd over the land who will not care for the lost, or seek the young, or heal the injured, or feed the healthy, but will eat the meat of the choice sheep, tearing off their hooves.

17 ‘Woe to the worthless shepherd,
who deserts the flock!
May the sword strike his arm and his right eye!
May his arm be completely withered,
his right eye totally blinded!’

 

[CharismaticLady]

The olive tree can be represented by the Abrahamic Covenant. Which is the introduction of justification by faith.

The olive tree has holy roots and trunk, the branches are holy because they are fed by the roots. This represents saved Israel in the OT when the nation as a whole served God.

When Jesus came and was rejected by the religious leaders, some, not all the branches were broken off through unbelief. There is a remnant of Jews on the olive tree.

The olive tree is a natural olive tree representing the saved Jews.

Now Paul introduces a Mystery of God, he announces it as a New Covenant. This new covenant has included the Gentile into His kingdom.

Paul likens the gentile believer as a "wild olive branch" that has been now grafted into the natural olive tree.

All the branches on the olive tree are saved, but all are not natural branches, some are wild olive branches. In fact, the majority by far are wild olive branches.

Many have misunderstood the meaning of the olive tree and through that misunderstanding the false teaching of replacement theology was born.

The New Covenant was in place before Paul was even saved. It didn't start with Gentiles. That is replacement theology that I don't believe.

 

[Peter J Barban]

I thought it was pretty easy to understand.

The full argument covers Chapters 9-11 Paul loves Isreal and is heartbroken that the nation has rejected the messiah. This appears to violate the Holy Scriptures. So, Paul reassesses assumptions of how God sees Isreal.

Paul reveals that there is a physical/flesh Isreal and a spiritual Isreal. Only the Spiritual Isreal will be saved.

 

[HatGuy]

There has always been a remnant of the natural olive tree. The spiritual branches grafted in do not make the olive tree spiritual.

Your use of "spiritual Israel" supports replacement theology. Israel has been set aside not replaced.

Whether we want to admit it or not, the church is Gods second choice. We will never be the natural branches.

The Church is God's fulfilment of the original promise to Abraham to be a "father of many nations" (Genesis 17:4,5). God always wanted all the nations. Israel was meant to be a blessing to the nations - a sign of God's faithfulness to his creation; a nation representing the Kingdom to the nations.

The Church is not God's "second choice". He has no first or second choice, only one choice, "The Church." It's not like Jesus has two brides!

Paul is clearly condemning Jewish Nationalism in the book of Romans, and all forms of nationalism in fact. "Spiritual Israel" was always true Israel. That's the whole deal in vs 6 - 9.

6 This does not mean that God’s word has failed, because not all who are descended from Israel are really Israel, 7 and not all who are descended from Abraham are really his children. On the contrary, “Your line of descent will be traced through Isaac.” 8 This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are counted as his descendants. 9 For this is what the promise said: “I will arrive at this set time, and Sarah will have a son.”

For after all, flesh and blood does not inherit the Kingdom. 1 Cor 15:50.

"28 There is not Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female, for you are all one and the same in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants and heirs according to the promise." (Gal 3:28-29)

The NT is clear that God's plan is to make ONE man instead of two. (Eph 2:15). The point always was, is, and will always be the Church.

 

[misput]

The Church is God's fulfilment of the original promise to Abraham to be a "father of many nations" (Genesis 17:4,5). God always wanted all the nations. Israel was meant to be a blessing to the nations - a sign of God's faithfulness to his creation; a nation representing the Kingdom to the nations.

The Church is not God's "second choice". He has no first or second choice, only one choice, "The Church." It's not like Jesus has two brides!

Paul is clearly condemning Jewish Nationalism in the book of Romans, and all forms of nationalism in fact. "Spiritual Israel" was always true Israel. That's the whole deal in vs 6 - 9.

6 This does not mean that God’s word has failed, because not all who are descended from Israel are really Israel, 7 and not all who are descended from Abraham are really his children. On the contrary, “Your line of descent will be traced through Isaac.” 8 This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are counted as his descendants. 9 For this is what the promise said: “I will arrive at this set time, and Sarah will have a son.”

For after all, flesh and blood does not inherit the Kingdom. 1 Cor 15:50.

"28 There is not Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female, for you are all one and the same in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants and heirs according to the promise." (Gal 3:28-29)

The NT is clear that God's plan is to make ONE man instead of two. (Eph 2:15). The point always was, is, and will always be the Church.

"Hard to be understood" but once we do it seems so simple. Thanks HatGuy.

 

[Charlie24]

The Church is God's fulfilment of the original promise to Abraham to be a "father of many nations" (Genesis 17:4,5). God always wanted all the nations. Israel was meant to be a blessing to the nations - a sign of God's faithfulness to his creation; a nation representing the Kingdom to the nations.

The Church is not God's "second choice". He has no first or second choice, only one choice, "The Church." It's not like Jesus has two brides!

Paul is clearly condemning Jewish Nationalism in the book of Romans, and all forms of nationalism in fact. "Spiritual Israel" was always true Israel. That's the whole deal in vs 6 - 9.

6 This does not mean that God’s word has failed, because not all who are descended from Israel are really Israel, 7 and not all who are descended from Abraham are really his children. On the contrary, “Your line of descent will be traced through Isaac.” 8 This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are counted as his descendants. 9 For this is what the promise said: “I will arrive at this set time, and Sarah will have a son.”

For after all, flesh and blood does not inherit the Kingdom. 1 Cor 15:50.

"28 There is not Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female, for you are all one and the same in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants and heirs according to the promise." (Gal 3:28-29)

The NT is clear that God's plan is to make ONE man instead of two. (Eph 2:15). The point always was, is, and will always be the Church.

God chose Israel to evangelize the world, they failed, and God chose the gentile to evangelize the world through the church.

There would have been no church if Israel had accepted Christ!!!

Looks like a second choice to me.

 

[thomas_t]

Paul is pointing out that God’s promise to Israel did not fail because the promise was for the Spiritual Israel – the faithful Remnant, […]

Hi Willing Heart,

Since you say spiritual Israel = faithful remnant, which is false in my opinion... let me tell you my opinion. The promise as made in Romans 11:26, for instance, isn't meant for Jesus-friendly folks such as the faithful remnant. Romans 11:28 makes it clear that the promise of two verses earlier is made to enemies of the gospel. In fact it's made to Israel as a whole. In my opinion they are enemies of the gospel.
Thomas

 

[ICONO'CLAST]

The Church is God's fulfilment of the original promise to Abraham to be a "father of many nations" (Genesis 17:4,5). God always wanted all the nations. Israel was meant to be a blessing to the nations - a sign of God's faithfulness to his creation; a nation representing the Kingdom to the nations.

The Church is not God's "second choice". He has no first or second choice, only one choice, "The Church." It's not like Jesus has two brides!

Paul is clearly condemning Jewish Nationalism in the book of Romans, and all forms of nationalism in fact. "Spiritual Israel" was always true Israel. That's the whole deal in vs 6 - 9.

6 This does not mean that God’s word has failed, because not all who are descended from Israel are really Israel, 7 and not all who are descended from Abraham are really his children. On the contrary, “Your line of descent will be traced through Isaac.” 8 This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are counted as his descendants. 9 For this is what the promise said: “I will arrive at this set time, and Sarah will have a son.”

For after all, flesh and blood does not inherit the Kingdom. 1 Cor 15:50.

"28 There is not Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female, for you are all one and the same in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants and heirs according to the promise." (Gal 3:28-29)

The NT is clear that God's plan is to make ONE man instead of two. (Eph 2:15). The point always was, is, and will always be the Church.

Yes. This is exactly what the scripture has taught since it was written.

 

[ICONO'CLAST]

God chose Israel to evangelize the world, they failed, and God chose the gentile to evangelize the world through the church.

There would have been no church if Israel had accepted Christ!!!

Looks like a second choice to me.

The church has always been God's eternal purpose .Eph. 3:9-11.
His purpose is always accomplished.

 

[HatGuy]

God chose Israel to evangelize the world, they failed, and God chose the gentile to evangelize the world through the church.

There would have been no church if Israel had accepted Christ!!!

Looks like a second choice to me.

God has had one plan from the beginning and that was the Church. As I showed, the scriptures point to that theme. The Church is the fulfilment of the promise and the plan until Jesus consummates the Kingdom.

I honestly can't see a theme anywhere where God had to make a secondary plan. There's only ever been one plan.

The scriptures I posted attest to that theme. You'd need to show, in an uncomplicated straight forward manner, that the Church is a "second choice". I know of no scriptures which proclaim such a theme.

Maybe start with explaining how Jesus has two brides?

 

[Charlie24]

The church has always been God's eternal purpose .Eph. 3:9-11.
His purpose is always accomplished.

As you folks always do, you have twisted scripture to fit a false doctrine. It says no such thing.

If the church was first choice, why did Christ only preach the gospel of the kingdom to the Jew? Why did he only send the 12 apostles to the house of Israel?

Why did Paul say salvation is to the Jew first and also to the gentile?

Why did Paul say this in Rom. 11:11?
I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.

Salvation came to the Gentile, and the church was born after the Jews rejected it.

The Jews were chosen first to evangelize the world, they refused, and God chose the gentile church SECOND to evangelize the world.

 

[Charlie24]

God has had one plan from the beginning and that was the Church. As I showed, the scriptures point to that theme. The Church is the fulfilment of the promise and the plan until Jesus consummates the Kingdom.

I honestly can't see a theme anywhere where God had to make a secondary plan. There's only ever been one plan.

The scriptures I posted attest to that theme. You'd need to show, in an uncomplicated straight forward manner, that the Church is a "second choice". I know of no scriptures which proclaim such a theme.

Maybe start with explaining how Jesus has two brides?

There was no plan A and B.

Before God created man He chose a special nation that He would create. His plan was that they would draw the world to Him. He knew they would fail, and He knew the gentile world would believe and carry out that task.

But His chosen people were His first choice. They will yet proclaim the gospel of Christ to the world in the Millennium. As Paul said, he has not cast His people away.