An Arminian "dares" to walk through the text of Romans 9

Diserner

Diserner

Well-known member
Exploratory ramblings of the Calvinist stronghold passage from a questioning Arminian:

I thought I'd take the time to tackle the top Calvinistic passage just for my own benefit and to honestly look at both sides as I go through the text to the best of my ability. I rate them in convincingness as 1. Romans 9, 2. John 6, and 3. Ephesians 1. If anyone can say they can read Romans 9 and not at least consider some Calvinistic thoughts I think they are being dishonest. I have a perhaps unique perspective in that I don't feel I came from any religious camp but mostly just went straight to the Word, and that I felt free will was pretty much obvious until I came to Romans 9 and it definitely gave me pause. Here was an argument I hadn't truly seen put this way before in Scripture and my first thought was the fear I might be a vessel of wrath; which is an interesting first reaction, since all the Word up to that point pretty much was indicating you pursue righteousness and find it from your own volition, and if you're wicked it's because you, yourself, chose that. Of course also it was said that all the while God predestined you to have this opportunity to live for him.

Yet here was something different, something where nothing I did mattered and God just put me in a slot I had absolutely no choice about, and that of course was disconcerting, not because I was the person objecting back to God “why did you make me like this,” but because I honestly wasn't sure of which way he made me. At that point I was ready to submit to whatever I had to (like I had a choice, right?) but I sure didn't want to be a vessel of wrath. All this mind you was before I ever even had the slightest idea of what Calvinism or Arminianism was, in fact, I had never even heard the terms before at this point many years ago. I was a pretty new believer and pretty young just digging into the Word of God to see what's there. Once you get this idea it definitely can color how you see a lot of other passages. I don't think just John 6 or Ephesians 1 would be enough to build a Calvinistic theological castle without Romans 9, indeed I've heard them say “it sounds like it is directly arguing with an Arminian!” And having now studied it a lot more, especially over the last few years, I just wanted to go through the chapter factoring in both my own thoughts and everything I've heard, but hopefully without a bias as much as possible. But first one more preliminary explanation of the problems I feel are at stake.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So I begin out of the Concordant Literal Version, Romans 9:

Paul is sorry for the Jews
1 The truth am I telling in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience testifying together with me in holy spirit, 2 2 That my sorrow is great, and unintermittent pain is in my heart -" 3 for I myself wished to be anathema from Christ - for my brethren, my relatives according to the flesh, 4 who are Israelites, whose is the sonship and the glory and the covenants and the legislation and the divine service and the promises;" 5 whose are the fathers, and out of whom is the Christ according to the flesh, Who is over all, God be blessed for the eons. Amen!"

Comments: Already I have serious problems with the idea of divine determinism fitting in with this passage. Why would Paul have great sorrow and unceasing pain in his heart for vessels of wrath that are completely and truly evil to the core and created for the purpose of God storing up his wrath to unleash on them and nothing else? And here Paul is making a big point of saying how he wishes he would switch places with them and be the reprobate. Why wouldn't Paul put God's will above his own and rejoice in it? Why would Paul exalt his own seemingly soulish and fleshly compassion above the very will of God? Does this show something about how we are to view evil, and maybe how God views evil? As just a sad tragedy? I don't know. Now is listed the wonderful blessings the Jews received from God, which even led to the eventual coming of the Messiah and a probable affirmation of his divinity. But now we have this:

6 Now it is not such as that the word of God has lapsed, for not all those out of Israel, these are Israel;

Comments: This seems to be the “topic sentence” of the entire chapter. For “lapsed” most used “failed,” and wow, that sounds like the Calvinist's problem in thinking free will means that God is somehow a “failure.” I would think, although, that anything truly outside of God's control would necessitate him perhaps failing to get what he wanted, and it's a bit disingenuous to call that becoming a failure, but perhaps not strictly. Assuming God loves all people, he would be a colossal failure if most were not saved, however I don't think any person could even be described as “lost” under Calvinism, for the implications of the word itself. Regardless, the rest of the arguments have to be fitted to this paradigm, “why aren't all those out of Israel actually Israel?”

All of Abraham not of the promise

7 neither that Abraham's seed are all children, but "In Isaac shall your seed be called." 8 That is, that the children of the flesh, not these are the children of God, but the children of the promise is He reckoning for the seed." 9 For the word of the promise is this: At "this season I shall come "and there will be for Sarah a son."

Comments: So oddly enough, we have a lot of fleshly extraneous people around the covenant people of God, and the point seems to be similar to Galatians in that there is people born after the spirit and other people who don't have the same inward inclinations but still “hang around” the genuine people of God, and in fact, try to trip them up or bully them. In Galatians the idea is fleshed out, no pun intended, in it's relation to the Law of Moses and how a person seeks righteousness (which is also addressed here later in chapter 11). And concurrently with this extraneous people out of covenant with God because they aren't seeking it the right way, is the idea that the promise cannot at all fail to produce spiritual seed. Again, just oddly enough there will be “not children of God” hanging around the real children and thinking they are.

10 Yet, not only so, but Rebecca also is having her bed of one, Isaac, our father." 11 For, not as yet being born, nor putting into practice anything good or bad, that the purpose of God may be remaining as a choice, not out of acts, but of Him Who is calling, 12 it was declared to her that "The greater shall be slaving for the inferior, 13 According as it is written, "Jacob I love, yet Esau I hate."

Comments: Now this sounds very Calvinistic “not doing good or bad, but only according to the choice of God.” But of course we ask “choice for what?” And it says one child will serve the other, and one will be favored over the other. And it would seem at this point that they are representative of their descendants like it says in Hebrews that all gave tithes in the loins of Abraham. We know of course the OT references and their contexts at this point mainly describe the nations. In these four verses alone it would be hard to see eternal individual destinies being spoken of, but again the theme is “why is there 'not' children of God among real children of God.” And here we might see it arguing that it is only because of choice of God, however even though it says before the children had done good or bad, I wonder if that excludes God choosing based on something he saw of their heart's disposition (1 Samuel 16:7; 1 Kings 14:12-13).

14 What, then, shall we be declaring? Not that there is injustice with God? May it not be coming to that!" 15 For to Moses He is saying, "I shall be merciful to whomever I may be merciful, and I shall be pitying whomever I may be pitying."

Comments: Now unless Paul's point was something that sounded unjust, as Calvinists love to point out, he wouldn't be bringing that up the “objection.” The idea of a favoritism not based on anything a person does is intuitively unfair and even abhorrent, yet it seems Paul is quite aware his argument will produce that thought at this current time. Yet Paul answers in the negative, seeming to deny this resulting conclusion. If he thought God was unfair wouldn't he at this point in time just out with it and say something like “yes he seems like it, but bow to him anyway!” Why would Paul use his strongest denial, “may it never be,” if he was pretty much agreeing that this is the result of his arguments. Now we have the passage “I will be mercy-ing whom I will be mercy-ing” and it might seem at first glance this is simply an arbitrary random lottery pick, where lightning just happens to strike a few lucky souls that God then “mercy-s.” Of course studying the original passage where Moses asks to see God's glory we again encounter what we would consider the free will interaction of man, for it was Moses asking to see God's glory. Indeed God often got angry with Moses or offered him things or threatened things, much in the way that two people with free wills would interact. In fact Scripture makes a big point of saying “The Lord talked to Moses a man would with his friend, face to face.” Could that all be a puppet show? I guess it could. But would we need a really strong reason to believe that? I think we would. If God's image would be his freedom of will, and not his power and glory and perfection, it would fit nicely with him treating a man as his equal in the regard of self-determination. Does this verse and the preceding ones absolutely and completely exclude the idea that anything a person does independently in themselves can have any influence at all with their relationship with God? I'm not sure, but it goes on:

16 Consequently, then, it is not of him who is willing, nor of him who is racing, but of God, the Merciful."

Comments: We might easily be excused for thinking the point of verse 16 is to answer my previous question in the decidedly negative. Yet how can this one verse stand against the seeming entirety of the rest of Scripture that boldly declares we can choose good or evil, we can sow to the flesh or the spirit, and we ourselves will reap the result of what we decide to do. Maybe it's just a concept of grace we have to at some point encounter in our walk with God where we realize that nothing of ourselves has inherent good and nothing of ourselves is something we can trust? Sort of a “Job Encounter” where we see that despite our best efforts it was God all along that chose to guide us to himself and there was no “good thing” in our flesh? Or is the passage saying even more than that, that absolutely nothing a human does has any bearing whatsoever in how God treats him or her? How could we square that with passages like “them that honor me, I will honor,” as if we had a real choice.
 
17 For the scripture is saying to Pharaoh that "For this selfsame thing I rouse you up, so that I should be displaying in you My power, and so that My name should be published in the entire earth."

Comments: And now Pharaoh is introduced and what could he possibly have to do with the topic “not all of Israel are really Israel.” There was hardly a person farther away from the covenant people than Pharaoh, so why bring him up. It is almost as if at this point Paul knows he is going into the “double predestination” territory and so brings up a prime example, because naturally after we think of the people God “has mercy” on we think of the people he doesn't. And here Pharaoh's stated purpose is that he is to make God more famous in the earth. Now does this passage really address any previous conditions that led up to Pharaoh being “chosen” to do this? Was it in the womb of momma Pharaoh before he had done any good or evil? It's not entirely clear, although you could see how one could keep inferring that idea from the previous text.

18 Consequently, then, to whom He will, He is merciful, yet whom He will, He is hardening." 19 You will be protesting to me, then, "Why, then, is He still blaming? for who has withstood His intention?

Comments: Ouch. It almost seems as if Paul wants to clear up any misconception that something might possibly be determined by the creature itself. The objector clearly seems to have this in mind when he says “who has withstood his intention.” We could possibly see this as having a broader meaning that allows “creature-ly liberty,” if “his intention” were to mean simply what God commanded or desired. Are we to think from verse 19 that nothing ever “withstands” his intention, even against such a bulk of testimony elsewhere that people can “resist” God's desire for them. The testimony of Scripture in fact is that humans have “resisted” God's will from Genesis to Revelation. So are we now at this point introducing some secret second will of God? Is God behind the scenes of this play snickering that his puppets actually think they have any part at all in the roles they play (because he made them think that, of course)? Is the idea of responsibility and delegated sovereignty a complete sham and travesty? Is this verse just a glimpse of things we see darkly, and all the play is already set in stone?

20 O man! who are you, to be sure, who are answering again to God? That which is molded will not protest to the molder, "Why do you make me thus? 21 Or has not the potter the right over the clay, out of the same kneading to make one vessel, indeed, for honor, yet one for dishonor?

Comments: Wait! What is this... now if God himself determines every act of man, why is Paul asking about man “talking back to God.” A man can only “talk back to God” if there is something independent in the man. Otherwise God ordained and decreed the man to “talk back” and no one anywhere will be surprised that he did. Sure the Potter has the right to make whatever vessels he wants. But what vessels do the Potter really want? The original passage that the idea comes from in Jeremiah and Isaiah again seem to heavily emphasize the freedom of the creation, as do seemingly every OT quote in this chapter. And yet in Romans 9 itself it seems these ideas of creature-ly freedom are not acknowledged or explored. In Jeremiah it seems crystal clear that the vessel was “marred” in the Potter's hand, in a way the Potter never intended. And why would a good Potter ever want bad pots?! But again how in the world can that which is molded “protest” against the molder at all in this argument? It's impossible under Calvinism for anything to originate in the man outside of God, so God himself is infusing the objection to God's own sovereignty into the man?! It's as if God makes his puppet mouth back and talk saucy to him! And then says to this preordained and completely controlled creature “how dare you talk back to me?” So at this point I'm confused by the idea of a pot talking back to the Potter unless the pot has some measure of freedom in it. Otherwise the Potter is himself playing some very peculiar game with his pots in making them talk back to himself. Now suppose the Potter gave his clay a measure of freedom to be hard or soft, then he might decide what vessels to make by the quality of the clay itself. One might even think, that this pot is trying to blame God for what he himself has decided to be; you could even blame God for your own freedom of choice he gave you to decide.

22 Now if God, wanting to display His indignation and to make His powerful doings known, carries, with much patience, the vessels of indignation, adapted for destruction, 23 it is that He should also be making known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He makes ready before for glory -" 24 us, whom He calls also, not only out of the Jews, but out of the nations also."

Comments: I partly chose this literal translation because it is one of the rare translations that shows that prepared in verse 22 is not the same Greek word as prepared in verse 23. If those passages use the same Greek word or not is supremely important and it is in my opinion nothing short of dishonest for a translation not to show that the two words corresponding to preparing vessels of wrath and preparing vessels of mercy are different, because even if we don't know the exact Greek definition, using the exact same Greek word would speak volumes of an intended parallel just in itself. So here we have God's just wrath at his vessels of dishonor and his extreme patience in bearing with them for the sake of the elect vessels of mercy. Or on the surface it would seem like what this is saying. I particularly like the translation's choice of “adapted” for katartizo (Strongs 2675). The question I find myself asking at this point is, no matter how Calvinistic this chapter seems, can the bulk of how I read the rest of Scripture still fit in its interpretation. I would say this might be my bias, but if I truly believe the rest of testimony of Scripture is equally clear against divine determinism could I be honest to let this one passage redefine it all for me? The question is, is there any loophole, any way to get out of complete divine determinism here? Is this really and truly what Paul is wanting to convey here with no mollification or qualifications? Could Paul possibly be including or allowing any idea of a creature having free response in this chapter? I can honestly say I feel there are cracks for libertarian freedom in this passage, but I'm honest enough to say I may not perfectly judge my own motivations for it.

The calling of the Gentiles and rejecting of the Jews, foretold

25 As He is saying in Hosea also: I shall be calling those who are not My people "My people, And she who is not beloved "Beloved, 26 And it shall be, in the place where it was declared to them, 'Not My people are you, 'There "they shall be called 'sons of the living God.'" 27 Now Isaiah is crying over Israel, If the number of the sons of Israel should be as the sand of the sea, the residue shall be saved, 28 for "a conclusive and concise accounting the Lord will be doing on the earth." 29 And according as Isaiah declared before, "Except the Lord of hosts conserved us a seed, As Sodom would we become, And to Gomorrah would we be likened."

Comments: So here Paul contrasts the Gentile “elect” with the Jewish “not-quite elect.” And as in Galatians, Paul uses the Old Testament to show that the Gentiles are actually included in God's promise to Abraham that his descendants would be like the stars in the sky, by being able to make children of God out of “these stones.” Yet conversely even if the physical Israelites get very numerous, still only a remnant of them will be “saved” according to the judgment of the Lord. Indeed the remnant is seen as a small proportion of the populace and specifically “conserved.”

30 What, then, shall we be declaring? That the nations who are not pursuing righteousness overtook righteousness, yet a righteousness which is out of faith." 31 Yet Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, into a law of righteousness does not outstrip."

The cause of the Jews' stumbling

32 Wherefore? Seeing that it is not out of faith, but as out of law works, they stumble on the stumbling stone, 33 according as it is written: Lo! I am laying in Zion a Stumbling Stone and a Snare Rock, And the one believing on Him shall not be disgraced."

Comments: So now the Gospel is brought in as seeking righteousness by faith instead of works and effort, and this is the dividing line between the elect and the not-quite elect, which might also go full circle as to what has Paul in tears in verse one, that all his brethren are stumbling on the Rock that God laid down for his people to stand on.
 
Romans 10

The Scripture shows the difference between the righteousness of the law, and that of faith

1 Indeed, brethren, the delight of my heart and my petition to God for their sake is for salvation." 2 For I am testifying to them that they have a zeal of God, but not in accord with recognition." 3 For they, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, were not subjected to the righteousness of God."
4 For Christ is the consummation of law for righteousness to everyone who is believing.

Comments: Now again it seems Paul has left his Calvinistic slant, for he is petitioning God for the sake of the reprobate's salvation. This makes no sense if Paul just said he himself cannot resist God's will to make his “brethren” vessels of dishonor and pots for destruction. Paul would then be “talking back to God” and disagreeing with God's incontrovertible choice to not elect these ones he is hardening. Paul then says they are good to have “zeal” but their problem is “ignorance.” This might indicate something they could possibly fix, or were they to have their eyes opened as Paul did, they might respond “Lord, who are you?” Indeed if Paul thinks his own prayers might make a difference in the salvation of his brethren who are pursuing righteousness incorrectly, maybe he thinks the Church's prayers for him as he dragged them off to prison might have made a difference in his own salvation? And here Paul ends with a reaffirmation of faith in Christ. And from here on out in Romans 10 and 11 we might as well say it seems like Paul keeps switching between being a Calvinist and being an Arminian again.

5 For Moses is writing of the righteousness which is of law, that a man who does the same shall be living in it." 6 Yet the righteousness of faith is saying thus: You may not be saying in your heart, Who will be ascending into heaven? - that is, to be leading Christ down -" 7 or Who will be descending into the submerged chaos? - that is, to be leading Christ up from among the dead." 8 But what is it saying? Near you is the declaration, in your mouth and in your heart - that is, the declaration of faith which we are heralding" 9 that, if ever you should be avowing with your mouth the declaration that Jesus is Lord, and should be believing in your heart that God rouses Him from among the dead, you shall be saved." 10 For with the heart it is believed for righteousness, yet with the mouth it is avowed for salvation."

Comments: The most beautiful description of salvific faith by grace in Scripture.

and that all, both Jew and Gentile, that believe, shall not be confounded

11 For the scripture is saying: Everyone who is believing on Him shall not be disgraced. 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same One is Lord of all, being rich for all who are invoking Him." 13 For everyone, whoever should be invoking the name of the Lord, shall be saved."
14 How, then, should they be invoking One in Whom they do not believe? Yet how should they be believing One of Whom they do not hear? Yet how should they be hearing apart from one heralding? 15 Yet how should they be heralding if ever they should not be commissioned? According as it is written: How beautiful are the feet of those bringing an evangel of good! 16 But not all obey the evangel, for Isaiah is saying, "Lord, who believes our tidings? 17 Consequently, faith is out of tidings, yet the tidings through a declaration of Christ."


Comments: This definitely indicates people play a part in the process of spreading the Gospel, and I would say conversely strongly implies that unless this Gospel is spread the seeds cannot take root. We might say that the fact that it is declared that all who invoke the Lord's name will be saved has no bearing on who among those all, might be elect or the “ones God has mercy on.” Although in other Scriptures we see the class of ones God has mercy on are the class that humble themselves, and the Scripture gives no indication that the humbling has nothing to do with the person's free will. After all, humbling oneself is hardly “willing” or “running,” in fact it could be seen as the very opposite, an expression that one simply cannot will or run on one's own. So we might speculate there are two kinds of “actions,” and one kind of those could be expressed as trusting and hungering and humbling, yet not an action that is in itself an attempt to produce something righteous, but an active seeking of grace from God. Overall I think this particular passage supports a real human responsibility as its implication, and not just an unalterable, unchangeable “secondary means” to produce the elect, just as Jesus bemoaned the fields were white for the harvest and so we should pray to the Lord of the harvest for more laborers.

and that the Gentiles shall receive the word and believe

18 But, I am saying, Do they not hear at all? To be sure! "Into the entire earth came out their utterance, And into the ends of the inhabited earth their declarations."

Israel was not ignorant of these things

19 But, I am saying, Did not Israel know at all? First Moses is saying, I shall be provoking you to jealousy over those not a nation; Over an unintelligent nation shall I be vexing you." 20 20 Yet Isaiah is very daring and is saying, I was found by those who are not seeking Me; I became disclosed to those who are not inquiring for Me." 21 Now to Israel He is saying, The whole day I spread out My hands to a stubborn and contradicting people!"

Comments: The main idea here seems to be that Israel had every reason to believe God would include the Gentiles once the Messiah came, and that Israel has more often been producing “worthless grapes” even though it came from a choice stock. We have in Jeremiah 2: “Yet I planted you a choice vine, A completely faithful seed. How then have you turned yourself before Me into the degenerate shoots of a foreign vine?”And even God himself betrays a puzzled air by this, certainly not the sound of someone who himself had decreed it and then made it happen exactly as he wills. The whole idea of God holding his hands out, beckoning and imploring (and oh, how the Calvinists hate to visualize God like this!) is not the vision of a God who has himself created his people to never be able to come to him. What a sick cruel joke it would be to beckon and reach out to someone you purposefully created to refuse your overtures and be damned. In fact in the parable of the wedding it is said that those specifically “invited” did not come, with many excuses. It is hard to imagine God inviting an unalterably evil reprobate to be maritally united with him only to eternally disappoint himself and hurt his own feelings by his own decree.
 
Romans 11

God has not cast off all Israel

1 I am saying, then, Does not God thrust away His people? May it not be coming to that! For I also am an Israelite, out of Abraham's seed, Benjamin's tribe." 2 God does not thrust away His people whom He foreknew. Or have you not perceived in Elijah what the scripture is saying, as he is pleading with God against Israel? 3 Lord, Thy prophets they kill, Thine altars they dig down, and I was left alone, and they are seeking my soul." 4 But what is that which apprises saying to him? I left for Myself seven thousand men who do not bow the knee to the image of Baal. 5 Thus, then, in the current era also, there has come to be a remnant according to the choice of grace." 6 Now if it is in grace, it is no longer out of works, else the grace is coming to be no longer grace. Now, if it is out of works, it is no longer grace, else the work is no longer work."

Comments: Now I'm big on grace. Really, really big. It's been one of the most compelling lessons of my life, to learn the grace of God. And it's a powerful truth to see that works and grace are antagonistic to each other, and polar opposites. And Paul really hammers that point in here. He says that grace has accepted a remnant out of ungodly Israel, such that God has not completely cast them off. And when Elijah tried to tell God there just wasn't any good people left in Israel, God corrects him. Whether the 7,000 is a literal or figurative number it's hard to say, but it's a lot more than 1. And Paul says even some Jews now were coming to the grace of Christ. How a person's faith and personal humility factors into God bestowing his grace is not covered here, however. Some might say that “works” covers absolutely everything a human could actively do, however Paul himself defines works here as seeking righteousness through the law, and that is not everything a person can do, as even humility and faith do not qualify as that. Else why would Christ say “seek first the kingdom” if all seeking were done through works.

Some were elected, though the rest were hardened

7 What then? What Israel is seeking for, this she did not encounter, yet the chosen encountered it. Now the rest were calloused, 8 even as it is written, God gives them a spirit of stupor, eyes not to be observing, and ears not to be hearing, till this very day." 9 And David is saying, Let their table become a trap and a mesh, And a snare and a repayment to them:" 10 Darkened be their eyes, not to be observing, And their backs bow together continually."

Comments: Now Paul seems to go a bit more Calvinistic here, saying only the chosen encountered God's grace, and the rest were hardened by God himself. Now the concept of judicial hardening, where God confirms and strengthens the sinner in his own hardness he began with, is seen often in the Old Testament. But here Paul does not cover it, and leaves you with the impression God simply took some innocent people and made them evil. Even though Israel was “seeking” it, it should have known it was not seeking it properly. And indeed the very way it sought righteousness brought out it's own sin and condemnation, much as Paul had just described in Romans 7. Is this describing unalterable election to damnation?

11 I am saying, then, Do they not trip that they should be falling? May it not be coming to that! But in their offense is salvation to the nations, to provoke them to jealousy." 12 Now if their offense is the world's riches and their discomfiture the nations' riches, how much rather that which fills them!" 13 Now to you am I saying, to the nations, in as much as, indeed, then, I am the apostle of the nations, I am glorifying my dispensation, 14 if somehow I should be provoking those of my flesh to jealousy and should be saving some of them. 15 For if their casting away is the conciliation of the world, what will the taking back be if not life from among the dead?

Comments: The only meaning that “provoking them to jealousy” could have, is if they could actually come to repentance again. And so Paul turns Arminian once again, saying that God's pouring the riches of his grace to the Gentiles is actually one more mighty calling of the Jews to repentance, and indeed if they respond it will be even more full of grace then if they had responded in the OT. Paul even says he tries as much as he can to make his countrymen jealous in the hope of saving some of them. This is not the speech of someone who thinks the fellow Jews are decreed to be hardened by God. Now a Calvinist might argue that in all these expressions of hope by Paul for his brethren, Paul might only be concerned with saving the “elect” among them. But I think that goes contrary to how Paul clearly groups all the Jews together and never once makes a distinction about “calling the elect out from among the reprobate.” And now he continues to explore the idea that they had the potentiality of being cast away, or being taken back, according to their response to God's grace.
 
There is hope of their conversion

16 Now if the firstfruit is holy, the kneading is also; and if the root is holy, the boughs are also." 17 Now if some of the boughs are broken out, yet you, being a wild olive, are grafted among them, and became a joint participant of the root and fatness of the olive, 18 be not vaunting, you are not bearing the root, but the root you."

The Gentiles may not exult over them

19 You will be declaring, then, "Boughs are broken out that I may be grafted in."
20 Ideally! By unbelief are they broken out, yet you stand in faith. Be not haughty, but fear." 21 For if God spares not the natural boughs, neither will He be sparing you!" 22 Perceive, then, the kindness and severity of God! On those, indeed, who are falling, severity, yet on you, God's kindness, if you should be persisting in the kindness: else you also will be hewn out." 23 Now they also, if they should not be persisting in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again." 24 For if you were hewn out of an olive wild by nature, and, beside nature, are grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much rather shall these, who are in accord with nature, be grafted into their own olive tree!"

Comments: Here is one of the most beautifully expressed declarations of real human responsibility and free libertarian response to God message, in the entire New Testament. “If you should be persisting” and “if they should not be persisting” seem to leave no room at all for God decreeing them to do one or the other, and thereby forcing his will over the respective individuals. And we could well deduce from this, that the original reason the Jews were “broken out” of the “holy root” is because they “persisted in unbelief” themselves, and this is in accord with many other passages. And Paul keeps hammering the point, so that you cannot miss it, by his constant repetition, as is his wont to do, as if he wanted to remove all possibility of misunderstanding his point, and ends with a reaffirmation that the Jews could once again be “grafted in” if only they would let go of their unbelief. Paul, could you please make up your mind, does God unalterably choose our destiny, or does our response to him decide our own fate? And this type of human action could not possibly be what Paul had in mind by “righteousness by works.”

25 For I am not willing for you to be ignorant of this secret, brethren, lest you may be passing for prudent among yourselves, that callousness, in part, on Israel has come, until the complement of the nations may be entering."

for there is a promise of their salvation

26 And thus all Israel shall be saved, according as it is written, Arriving out of Zion shall be the Rescuer. He will be turning away irreverence from Jacob." 27 And this is my covenant with them Whenever I should be eliminating their sins.
28 As to the evangel, indeed, they are enemies because of you, yet, as to choice, they are beloved because of the fathers." 29 For unregretted are the graces and the calling of God. 30 For even as you once were stubborn toward God, yet now were shown mercy at their stubbornness, 31 thus these also are now stubborn to this mercy of yours, that now they also may be shown mercy." 32 For God locks up all together in stubbornness, that He should be merciful to all."

Comments: One might speculate that Paul sees a coming Jewish revival, due to an Old Testament promise. Or perhaps he simply means “all” Israel will be sure to include some future Jews coming to their Messiah. Now Paul says these supposedly “reprobate” Jews are “beloved because of the fathers.” And in the OT the prophets clearly and vividly expressed God's passionate love to the wayward and sinning Jews, with God even pleading with his people to return. It is quite impossible for me to accept that God could in any way be said to “love” the reprobate, those he eternally decreed to be damned, in any way, shape or form, and even many Calvinists admit that. If we say it's some form of watered down love, like how I love hamburgers, that just doesn't square with Scripture. This really does seem hard to stomach with the idea that God decreed and decided to pass over these people from before time began. Paul even compares the Gentiles' old stubbornness with Israel's current stubbornness, clearly intimating that the Jews could turn again just as well, in fact it is a further act of mercy by God to use each other's stubbornness to bring each the other to mercy. So the theme of this chapter is “God is still reaching his hands out.” It really is hard to imagine the graces of God being “irrevocable” unless that “grace can be received in vain.” Jesus looked at the rich young ruler and “loved him” even though the ruler turned away. Could he possibly be said to have loved a creation he created for the sole purpose of showing forth his wrath and expressing the evil of hatred towards him, without any possibility of redemption? That is where I simply cannot cross the road to the Calvinist's side. God wants to “be merciful to all,” or we “know not what spirit we are of.”

God's judgments are unsearchable

33 O, the depth of the riches and the wisdom and the knowledge of God! How inscrutable are His judgments, and untraceable His ways!" 34 For, who knew the mind of the Lord? or, who became His adviser? 35 or, who gives to Him first, and it will be repaid Him? 36 seeing that out of Him and through Him and for Him is all: to Him be the glory for the eons! Amen!

Comments: Paul ends this section as if it were its own letter, with a beautiful doxology expressing the wisdom, graciousness and self-sufficiency of God.
 
Closing: I will say at this point what I feel like the main underlying issues are, to me. Calvinism is appealing because it solves two of a human being's biggest theological struggles in one neat blow. These are 1. My own insecurity 2. The problem of evil. If I simply say evil is exactly what God wanted so he could display his wrath against it, I really don't have any struggle anymore wondering why he let it exist. But then it feels like I just moved the problem back one step into the very character of God. And so is this just something about God I have to swallow, like it or not? Certainly things like that probably exist. But then it makes me wonder, is this what God really wants. And so the desire of God is seen to be important to me to determine his character. But then how can he not have the power and wisdom to stop something he doesn't want? This God admittedly seems weak to me. And these are the things I often feel like Arminians really don't address well.

First of all, it's hard to believe that truly evil things don't happen or that everyone gets a real chance at the Gospel and fair and equal treatment. How many times have I heard a person say that they simply want what Thomas got? Who wouldn't believe something that's right in front of their eyes? Even I don't feel like I've always had that opportunity. So if there are innocent victims, if these exist, and God in any way knows it will happen and allows it to happen, how can there possibly be a sufficient reason? It almost seems by definition, there can't be a sufficient reason. Now comes in the power of delegated sovereignty. This would mean, basically, that God allows creatures to have power over other creatures destinies.

This seems fundamentally unfair to the core, yet fits in the Biblical paradigm and is basically the main Arminian silver bullet to, at least partially, explain the existence of an evil God does not want. But then we have things out of control, things happening that have no purpose, going back again to insecurity and evil. I would think, by definition evil was anti-God, evil had no inherent purpose except to “steal, kill, and destroy.” And how could God desire and ordain the very wolf that eats his own sheep? How could God be his own worst enemy? Yet still this God allowed things inconceivably horrible to happen. And of course this is where atheists simply have a heyday.
 
Man I have to scoot out for a while but this looks like its going to be a great thread. Thanks for posting this today.

I'm still jealous of your hi tech study work station lol.
 
civic said:
Man I have to scoot out for a while but this looks like its going to be a great thread. Thanks for posting this today.

I'm still jealous of your hi tech study work station lol.
Click to expand...

lol sorry i started out borrowing someone's very old pc i know how it feels
 
FOLLOWING THE ORIGINAL AUTHOR'S INTENT AT PARAGRAPH LEVEL

This is a study guide commentary, which means that you are responsible for your own interpretation of the Bible. Each of us must walk in the light we have. You, the Bible, and the Holy Spirit are priority in interpretation. You must not relinquish this to a commentator.

Read the chapter in one sitting. Identify the subjects (reading cycle #3). Compare your subject divisions with the five translations above. Paragraphing is not inspired, but it is the key to following the original author's intent, which is the heart of interpretation. Every paragraph has one and only one subject.

ROMANS 9-11'S RELATIONSHIP TO ROMANS 1-8

There have been two ways of understanding this literary unit's relationship to Romans 1-8.
It is a totally separate topic, a theological parenthesis
There is a drastic contrast and lack of logical connection between Rom. 8:39 and 9:1.
It is directly related to the historical tension in the church at Rome between believing Jews and believing Gentiles.

It was possibly related to the growing Gentile leadership of the Church because many Jewish people had left Rome after Caesar's decree to stop Jewish rituals.

There was misunderstanding about Paul's preaching concerning Israel (and the Law) and his apostleship to the Gentiles (offer of free grace), therefore, he deals with this topic in this section. Paul wanted this church to help him on a mission to Spain.
It is the climax and logical conclusion of Paul's presentation of the gospel.

Paul concludes Romans 8 with the promise of "no separation from the love of God." What about the unbelief of the covenant people (possibly related to the conflict within the Roman church between believing Jewish and Gentile leadership)?

Romans 9-11 answers the paradox of the gospel concerning Israel's unbelief!
Paul has been addressing this very issue (i.e., the preeminence of Israel) all through the letter (cf. Rom. 1:3,16; 2-3; 4).

Paul claims that God is true to His Word. What about His OT word to Israel? Are all those promises null and void? See note at Rom. 9:6.
SPECIAL TOPIC: PAUL'S VIEWS OF THE MOSAIC LAW
SPECIAL TOPIC: MOSAIC LAW AND THE CHRISTIAN

There are several possible ways to outline this literary unit
by Paul's use of a supposed objector (diatribe). Paul knew how Jewish people would respond to his gospel presentation, so he puts their objections in rhetorical questions.
Rom. 9:6
Rom. 9:14
Rom. 9:19
Rom. 9:30
Rom. 11:1
Rom. 11:11

Romans 9-11 forms a literary unit (chapter and verse divisions are not inspired and were added in the Middle Ages). It must be interpreted together as a whole. However, there are at least three major subject divisions.
Rom. 9:1-29 (focusing on God's sovereignty)
Rom. 9:30-10:21 (focusing on human responsibility)
Rom. 11:1-32 (God's inclusive, eternal, redemptive purpose)

This section is as much a cry from the heart (cf. Rom. 9:3; 11:22,33) as a presentation from the mind (logical outline). Its passion reminds one of God's heart breaking over rebellious Israel as in Hosea 11:1-4,8-9.
 
In many ways the pain and goodness of the Law in Romans 7 are paralleled in Romans 9-10. In both cases Paul's heart was breaking over the irony of a law from God that brought death instead of life!

Paul's use of over 25 OT quotes in Romans 9-11 shows his desire to illustrate the paradox of Israel from OT sources, as he did in Romans 4, not just current experience. The majority of Abraham's physical descendants had rejected God, even in the past (cf. Acts 7; Nehemiah 9).

This text, like Eph. 1:3-14, deals with the eternal purposes of God for the redemption of all humanity.

At first it seems to describe God choosing some individuals and rejecting other individuals (supralapsarian Calvinism), however, I think the focus is not on individuals, but on God's eternal plan of redemption (cf. Gen. 3:15; 12:3; Acts 2:23; 3:18; 4:28; and 13:29).

The individuals in chapters 9 and 11 represent people groups, not individuals.
 
The Jerome Biblical Commentary, vol. 2, "The New Testament," edited by Joseph A. Fitzmyer and Raymond E. Brown, says:

"It is important to realize from the outset that Paul's perspective is corporate; he is not discussing the responsibility of individuals. If he seems to bring up the question of divine predestination, this has nothing to do with the predestination of individuals to glory" (p. 318).

SPECIAL TOPIC: YHWH'S ETERNAL REDEMPTIVE PLAN

A helpful YouTube video entitled, "How and Why Romans 9-11 Makes Me Arminian," by Dr. Matt. O'Reilly, is a very helpful overview of this literary unit. It contrasts corporate election with individual election.
CONTEXTUAL INSIGHTS TO CHAPTER 9

What a drastic change of attitude occurs between Romans 8 and Romans 9.

Romans 9 is one of the strongest NT passages on God's sovereignty (i.e., the others being, Rom. 8:28-30; Eph. 1:3-14), while Romans 10 states human's freewill clearly and repeatedly

"everyone," Rom. 9:4
"whosoever," Rom. 9:11,13
"all" Rom. 9:12 (twice)
 
Paul never tries to reconcile this theological tension. They are both true! Most Bible doctrines are presented in paradoxical or dialectical pairs. Most systems of theology are logical, but proof-text only one aspect of biblical truth.

Both Augustinianism and Calvinism versus semi-Pelagianism and Arminianism have elements of truth and error.

Biblical tension between doctrines is preferable to a proof-texted, dogmatic, rational, theological system that forces the Bible onto a preconceived interpretive grid!
SPECIAL TOPIC: EASTERN LITERATURE

Romans 9:30-33 is a summary of Romans 9 and the theme of Romans 10.

Notice how much Paul uses OT texts to establish his argument. This presupposes a Jewish readership in Rome.
Rom. 9:7 ‒ Gen. 21:12
Rom. 9:9 ‒ Gen. 18:10,14
Rom. 9:12 ‒ Gen. 25:32
Rom. 9:13 ‒ Mal. 1:2-3
Rom. 9:15 ‒ Exod. 33:19
Rom. 9:17 ‒ Exod. 9:16
Rom. 9:25 ‒ Hosea 2:23
Rom. 9:26 ‒ Hosea 1:10
Rom. 9:27 ‒ Isa. 10:22
Rom. 9:28 ‒ Isa. 10:23
Rom. 9:29 ‒ Isa. 1:9
Rom. 9:33 ‒ Isa. 28:16 and 8:14
There are many more OT quotes in Romans 10 and 11!

Paul uses rabbinical hermeneutics to make his theological points. Please see full note at Rom. 9:33 and
SPECIAL TOPIC: RABBINICAL HERMENTUTICAL TECHNIQUES
 
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: ROMANS 9:1-5
1I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit,2that I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart. 3For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, 4who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, 5whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.

9:1-2 Verses 1 and 2 form one sentence in Greek. Paul is giving several reasons they (the church at Rome) could know that he was telling the truth.

his union with Christ, Rom. 9:1
his Spirit-led conscience, Rom. 9:1
his deep feelings for Israel, Rom. 9:2

9:1 "I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying" Paul often made this kind of statement of his veracity (cf. 2 Cor. 11:10; Gal. 1:20; 1 Tim. 2:7) or a similar one about God as his witness (cf. Rom. 1:9; 2 Cor. 1:23; 11:31; Phil. 1:8; 1 Thess. 2:5,10). It was his way of asserting the truthfulness of his teachings and preaching. The experience on the road to Damascus changed everything (cf. Acts 9)!

"the truth" See SPECIAL TOPIC: "TRUTH" IN PAUL'S WRITINGS

"my conscience" This referred to the believer's God-given, Spirit-led moral sense. In one sense this is a key source of authority for believers. It is God's word, understood and applied by the Spirit of God to our minds (cf. 1 Tim. 1:5,19). The problem arises when believers—and for that matter, unbelievers—continue to reject the Word and the Spirit; it then becomes easier to rationalize one's sin (cf. 1 Tim. 4:2). Our consciences can be culturally and experientially conditioned.

SPECIAL TOPIC: CONSCIENCE


NASB, NKJV, Peshitta  "bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit"
NRSV  "confirms it by the Holy Spirit"
TEV  "ruled by the Holy Spirit"
NJB  "in union with the Holy Spirit assumes me"
REB  "enlightened by the Holy Spirit"
Paul believed he had a special call and mandate from Christ (cf. Acts 9:1-22; Gal. 1:1).

The VERBAL (PRESENT ACTIVE PARTICIPLE, cf. Rom. 2:15) is a compound with sun (so common in Paul). He was convinced of his new understanding based on

the revelation of Christ
on the road to Damascus
taught to him by Christ in Arabia (Nabetean kingdom)
the internal witness of the Spirit
He was an Apostle and spoke with divine authority (cf. 1 Cor. 7:25,40). He shared God's grief over the unbelief and incalcitrance of national Israel (cf. Rom. 9:2). They had so many chances and advantages (cf. Rom. 9:4-5).

SPECIAL TOPIC: THE PERSONHOOD OF THE SPIRIT

9:3
NASB, NKJV, NRSV  "For I could wish. . ."
TEV  "For their sake I could wish"
NJB  "I would be willing. . ."
REB  "I would even pray to"
Peshitta  "For I have prayed that. . ."
Paul felt so deeply for his people, Israel, that if his separation could effect their inclusion, he would be willing, Rom. 9:3.

This verse has such a strong, emphatic grammatical construction (IMPERFECT MIDDLE INDICATIVE with both autos and egō, and a PRESENT INFINITIVE). The intensity and burden of this prayer is very similar to Moses' intercessory prayer for sinful Israel in Exod. 32:30-35. This is best understood as a statement of desire, not fact. It is similar to a use of the IMPERFECT TENSE in Gal. 4:20.

SPECIAL TOPIC: INTERCESSORY PRAYER


NASB  "were accursed, separated from Christ"
NKJV  "were accursed from Christ"
NRSV  "were accursed and cut off from Christ"
TEV  "were under God's curse and separated from Christ"
NJB  "willingly be condemned and cut off from Christ"
REB  "to be an outcast myself, cut off from Christ"
Peshitta  "might be accursed because of Christ"

The basic etymology of "holy" is to set apart to God for His use. This same concept relates to "curse" (anathema, cf. 1 Cor. 12:3; 16:22; Gal. 1:8,9). Something or someone is set apart to God. It can be a positive experience (cf. Lev. 27:28; Luke 21:5) or a negative experience (cf. Josh. 6-7; Rom. 9:3), depending on the context.
 
"my kinsmen according to the flesh" See SPECIAL TOPIC: FLESH (SARX)

9:4-5 This series of NOUN PHRASES spells out in graphic detail the privileges of Israel. Their unbelief was all the more culpable in light of these advantages. To whom much is given, much is required (cf. Luke 12:48)!

9:4 "Israelites" This was the OT covenant name for Abraham's seed. After a pivotal encounter with God Jacob's name was changed to Israel (cf. Gen. 32:28). It became the collective title for the Jewish nation. Its etymology may be "may El (God) persevere" and by implication, not Jacob's trickery.

SPECIAL TOPIC: ISRAEL (THE NAME)

"to whom belongs the adoption as sons" In the OT the PLURAL of "sons" usually referred to the angels (cf. Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Dan. 3:25; Ps. 29:1; 89:6-7; see SPECIAL TOPIC: "SONS OF GOD" IN GENESIS 6), while the SINGULAR referred to

the Israeli King (cf. 2 Sam. 7:14; SPECIAL TOPIC: SON OF GOD)
the nation (cf. Exod. 4:22,23; Deut. 14:1; Hosea 11:1)
the Messiah (cf. Ps. 2:7; SPECIAL TOPIC: MESSIAH)
it can refer to humans (cf. Deut. 32:5; Ps. 73:15; Ezek. 2:1; Hos. 1:10. Genesis 6:2 is ambiguous; it could be either). In the NT it refers to one who belongs to the family of God.

Paul's major imagery for salvation was "adoption" (cf. Rom. 8:15,23; Gal. 4:5; Eph. 1:5), while Peter and John's was "born again." They are both familial images. It is not a Jewish, but Roman, imagery. Adoption was a very expensive and time consuming legal procedure under Roman law. Once adopted the person was considered a new person who could not be legally disowned or killed by their adoptive father.

However, in this verse it refers to Israel.

"the glory" The Hebrew root meant "to be heavy" which was imagery for that which was valuable. Here it refers to

God's revealing Himself on Mt. Sinai (cf. Exod. 19:18-19)
the Shekinah cloud of glory which led the Israelites during the Wilderness Wandering Period (cf. Exod. 40:34-38); see SPECIAL TOPIC: SHEKINAH
YHWH uniquely revealed Himself to Israel. YHWH's presence was referred to as His glory (cf. 1 Kgs. 8:10-11; Ezek. 1:28).

SPECIAL TOPIC: GLORY (NT)

SPECIAL TOPIC: GLORY (OT)

"the covenants" In the ancient Greek manuscripts P46, B, F, and G the SINGULAR "covenant" is used. However, the PLURAL is in MSS א, C, and some Old Latin, Vulgate, and Coptic versions. The UBS4 gives the PLURAL a "B" rating (almost certain). However, the PLURAL is never used in the OT.

There are several specific covenants in the OT: Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, and David. Since the giving of the Law is mentioned next, this probably refers to the Abrahamic Covenant, which was the one Paul saw as foundational (cf. Rom. 4:1-25; Gal. 3:16-17) and was repeated several times (i.e., Genesis 12, 15, 17) and to each of the Patriarchs.

SPECIAL TOPIC: COVENANT

"the giving of the Law and the temple service" This would refer to

Moses' receiving the Law on Mt. Sinai (cf. Exodus 19-20)
the Tabernacle of the Wilderness Wandering Period (cf. Exodus 25-40 and Leviticus); see SPECIAL TOPIC: TABERNACLE OF THE WILDERNESS (chart)
"the promises" God has revealed His future plans (cf. Rom. 1:2; Acts 13:32; Titus 1:2; Heb. 1:1) through the OT.

Since "the covenants" are mentioned earlier, "the promises" probably refers to the coming Messiah (cf. Rom. 9:5, e.g., Gen. 3:15; 49:10; Deut. 18:15,18-19; 2 Sam. 7; Ps. 16:10; 118:22; Isa. 7:14; 9:6; 11:1-5; Dan. 7:13,27; Micah 5:2-5a; Zech. 2:6-13; 6:12-13; 9:9; 11:12).

These promises (covenants) are both unconditional and conditional. They were unconditional as far as God's performance (cf. Gen. 15:12-21), but conditional on mankind's faith and obedience (cf. Gen. 15:6 and Romans 4). Only Israel had God's self revelation before the coming of Christ (but with exceptions such as Melchizedek, Job, Jethro).

SPECIAL TOPIC: COVENANT

9:5 "the fathers" This referred to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the Patriarchs of Genesis 12-50 (cf. Rom. 11:28; Deut. 7:8; 10:15).

SPECIAL TOPIC: COVENANT PROMISES TO THE PATRIARCHS

"from whom is the Christ according to the flesh" This referred to the physical lineage of the Messiah (cf. Rom. 1:3), the Anointed One, God's special chosen servant who would accomplish God's promises and plans, (cf. Rom. 10:6). This was the purpose of OT election!

The term "Christ" is the Greek translation of the Hebrew "Anointed One." In the OT three groups of leaders were anointed with special holy oil.

kings of Israel
high priests of Israel
prophets of Israel
It was a symbol of God's choosing and equipping them for His service. Jesus fulfilled all three of these anointed offices (cf. Heb. 1:2-3). He is God's full revelation because He was God incarnate (cf. Isa. 7:14; 9:6; Micah 5:2-5a; John 1:1-14; Col. 1:13-20).
 
NASB  "the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever"
NKJV  "Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God"
NRSV  "comes the Messiah, who is over all, God blessed forever"
TEV  "and Christ as a human being, belongs to their race.
  May God, who rules over all, be praised forever"
NJB  "came Christ who is above all, God for ever blessed"
REB  "May God, supreme above all, be blessed forever"
Peshitta  "who is God over all, to whom are due praise and thanksgiving
  for ever and ever

Grammatically this could be a doxology to the Father (TEV, following Jewish tradition), but the context favors Paul's affirmation of Jesus' deity (it does not follow the pattern of Jewish doxologies to YHWH in the LXX).

Paul does not use Theos for Jesus often, but he does use it (cf. Acts 20:28; 2 Thess. 1:12; Titus 2:13; Phil. 2:6).

All the early church Fathers interpreted this text as referring to Jesus. Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary On the Greek New Testament, pp. 520-522, shows that the different options are related to where the punctuation marks are placed. The ancient uncial manuscripts had no

capitalization
punctuation marks
paragraph divisions
not even spaces between words

"who is over all" This also could be a descriptive phrase for God the Father or Jesus the Son. It does reflect Jesus' statement of Matt. 28:19 and Paul's in Col. 1:15-20. This majestic phrase showed the height of Israel's folly in rejecting Jesus of Nazareth.

"forever" This is literally the Greek idiomatic phrase "unto the ages" (cf. Luke 1:33; Rom. 1:25; 11:36; Gal. 1:5; 1 Tim. 1:17). This is one of several related phrases

"unto the age" (cf. Matt. 21:19 [Mark 11:14]; Luke 1:55; John 6:5,58; 8:35; 12:34; 13:8; 14:16; 2 Cor. 9:9)
"of the age of the ages" (cf. Eph. 3:21)

There seems to be no distinction between these idioms for "forever." The term "ages" may be PLURAL in a figurative sense of the rabbinical grammatical construction called THE PLURAL OF MAJESTY or it may refer to the concept of several "ages" in the Jewish sense of "age of innocence," "age of wickedness," "age to come," or "age of righteousness."

SPECIAL TOPIC: FOREVER (GREEK IDIOM)

SPECIAL TOPIC: THIS AGE AND THE AGE TO COME

"Amen" See SPECIAL TOPIC: AMEN

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: ROMANS 9:6-13
6But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; 7nor are they all children because they are Abraham's descendants, but: "through Isaac your descendants will be named." 8That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants. 9For this is the word of promise: "At this time I will come, and Sarah shall have a son." 10And not only this, but there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac; 11for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, 12it was said to her, "The older will serve the younger." 13Just as it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

9:6 "the word of God" In this context this phrase refers to the OT covenantal promises. God's promises are sure (cf. Num. 23:19; Joshua 21:45; 23:14; 2 Kgs. 10:10; Isa. 40:8; 55:11; 59:21). Again, the theological distinction between "conditional" and "unconditional" covenant promises is very helpful.

SPECIAL TOPIC: COVENANT


NASB, NRSV, TEV, REB  "has failed"
NKJV  "has taken no effect"
REB  "has proven false"
Peshitta  "has actually failed"

This is the cricial question! The term (ekpiptō) was used in the Septuagint several times for something (cf. Isa. 6:13) or someone (cf. Isa. 14:12) falling. Here it is a PERFECT ACTIVE INDICATIVE, which denotes a state of being with lasting results (but it is negated). See note above for the surety of God's word. The problem is not God or His promises, but human sin and rebellion.

SPECIAL TOPIC: THE BIBLE (ITS UNIQUENESS AND INSPIRATION)

SPECIAL TOPIC: THE FALL OF MANKIND


NASB  "For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel"
NKJV  "For they are not all Israel who are of Israel"
NRSV  "For not all Israelites truly belong to Israel"
TEV  "For not all the people of Israel are the people of God"
NJB  "Not all those who descend from Israel are Israel"
REB  "Not all the offspring of Israel are truly Israel"
Peshitta  "For all those who belong to Israel are not Israelites"
The meaning of this paradoxical statement revolves around the different biblical meanings of the term "Israel."

Israel, meaning Jacob's descendants (cf. Gen. 32:22-32)
Israel, meaning the elect people of God (cf. TEV; in context, this is the best option)
spiritual Israel, Israel meaning the church, (cf. Gal. 6:16; 1 Pet. 2:8,9; Rev. 1:6) versus natural Israel (cf. Rom. 9:3-6)

Only some of Abraham's children were the children of promise (cf. Rom. 9:7). All the children of Isaac were never right with God based solely on their lineage (cf. Rom. 9:7), but on their faith (cf. Rom. 2:28-29; 4:1ff.; John 8:31-59; Gal. 3:7-9; 4:23). It was the believing remnant who received God's promises and walked in them by faith (cf. Rom. 9:27; 11:5).

Verse 6 starts a series of supposed objections (cf. Rom. 9:14,19,30; 11:1). This continues Paul's diatribe format. It conveys truth by means of a supposed objector (i.e., Mal. 1:2,6,7 [twice],12,13; 2:14,17 [twice]; 3:7,13,14).
 
SPECIAL TOPIC: THE REMNANT, THREE SENSES

9:7 The second half of this verse is a quote from Gen. 21:12d. Not all of Abraham's children were children of God's covenant promise (cf. Gen. 12:1-3; 15:1-11; 17:1-21; 18:1-15; Gal. 4:23). This shows the distinction between Ishmael and Isaac in Rom. 9:8-9, and Jacob and Esau in Rom. 9:10-11. These individuals represent peoples (i.e., corporate election for a redemptive purpose).

9:8 Here Paul is using the term "flesh" to refer to national descent (cf. Rom. 1:3; 4:1; 9:3,5). He is contrasting the natural children of Abraham (the Jews of Rom. 9:3) with the other children of Abraham (v. 7).

This is not the same contrast as Rom. 8:4-11, fallen mankind versus redeemed mankind.

SPECIAL TOPIC: FLESH

"the children of God" See SPECIAL TOPIC: THE CHILDREN OF GOD

9:9 This is a quote from Genesis 18:10,14; see notes online. The promised child ("the seed") will come from Sarah at God's initiative. This eventually will culminate in the birth of the Messiah. Isaac was a special fulfilment of God's promise to Abraham in Gen. 12:1-3 thirteen years earlier.

9:10 The wives of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were barren; they could not conceive. Their inability to have a child was one of God's ways to show that He was in control of the covenant promises, the Messianic line.

The other way was that the true Messianic line never proceeds through the oldest son of the Patriarchs (which was culturally expected). The key is God's choice (cf. Rom. 9:11-12).

9:11-12 Verses 11-12 are one sentence in Greek. This account is taken from Gen. 25:19-34; see notes online. This example is used to prove that God's choice (cf. Rom. 9:16), not

human lineage
human merit or achievements (cf. Rom. 9:16)
This is the new mechanism of the gospel, the new covenant (cf. Jer. 31:31-34; Ezek. 36:22-36).

However, it must be remembered that God's choice was not meant to exclude, but to include!

The Messiah will come from a select seed, but He will come for all (who exercise faith, cf. Rom. 2:28-29; 4:3,22-25; Romans 10).

SPECIAL TOPIC: WHY DO OT COVENANT PROMISES SEEM SO DIFFERENT FROM NT COVENANT PROMISES?

9:11 "purpose" This is the compound term pro plus tithēmi, which has several senses.

in Rom. 3:25
set forth publicly
propitiatory gift
to plan beforehand
of Paul, Rom. 1:13
of God, Eph. 1:9
The NOUN form (prothesis), used in this text, means "to set before"

used of the shewbread in the temple, Matt. 12:4; Mark 2:26; Luke 6:4
used of a predetermined, redemptive purpose of God, Rom. 8:28; 9:11; Eph. 1:5,11; 3:10; 2 Tim. 1:9; 3:10
Paul uses several compound terms with the PREPOSITION pro (before) in Romans 8 and 9 of Romans and Ephesians 1 (they show God's planned activity).

proginōskō (foreknew), Rom. 8:29
proorizō (design beforehand), Rom. 8:29 (Eph. 1:5,11), 30 (Eph. 1:9)
prothesis (predetermined purpose), Rom. 9:11
proetoimazō (preface beforehand), Rom. 9:23
prolegō (previously said), Rom. 9:29
proelpizō (hoped beforehand), Eph. 1:12)
 
9:12 This is a quote from the prophecy of Gen. 25:23 related to Esau and Jacob (as representations of a people group). This shows that Rebekah and Jacob acted out of prophecy, not personal gain, in tricking Isaac in regard to the blessing!

9:13 "but Esau I hated" This is a quote from Mal. 1:2-3. "Hate" is a Hebrew idiom of comparison. It sounds harsh in English, but compare Gen. 29:31-33; Deut. 21:15; Matt. 10:37-38; Luke 14:26; and John 12:25. The anthropomorphic terms "love" and "hate" relate not to God's emotions towards these individuals, but His commitment to a Messianic line and promise. Jacob was the son of promise based on the prophecy of Gen. 25:23. Esau, in Mal. 1:2-3, referred to the nation of Edom (the descendant of Esau).

SPECIAL TOPIC: GOD DESCRIBED AS HUMAN (ANTHROPOMORPHISM)

SPECIAL TOPIC: EDOM AND ISRAEL

SPECIAL TOPIC: SATANIC ATTEMPTS TO THWART THE MESSIANIC LINE IN GENESIS

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: ROMANS 9:14-18
14What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! 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 does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth." 18So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.

9:14 "What shall we say then" Paul often used this diatribe form (cf. Rom. 3:5; 4:1; 6:1; 7:7; 8:31; 9:14,19,30).

"There is no injustice with God, is there?" The grammar expects a "no" answer. How can God hold humans responsible if God's sovereignty is the deciding factor (cf. Rom. 9:19)? This is the mystery of election. The key emphasis in this context is that God is free to do what He will with humanity (rebellious mankind), however, God's sovereignty is expressed in mercy (see note at Rom. 9:15), not raw power. Again, it must be stated that this context is discussing corporate election for the purpose of universal redemption!

It must also be stated that God's sovereign choices are not based on foreknowledge of human's future choices and actions. If this were true then ultimately individual's choices and actions and merits would be the basis of God's choices (cf. Rom. 9:16; 1 Pet. 1:2). Behind this is the traditional Jewish view of prosperity to the righteous (cf. Deuteronomy 27-28; Job and Psalm 73). But, God chooses to bless the unworthy through faith (not performance, cf. Rom. 5:8). God knows all things but He has chosen to limit His choices

in mercy
in promise
There is a necessary human response, but it follows and ultimately confirms God's life changing elective choice!

"May it never be" This is a rare OPTATIVE FORM that was often used by Paul for an emphatic negation usually to his diatribe objector's questions (cf. Rom. 3:4,6,31; 6:2,15; 7:7,13; 11:1,11 also 1 Cor. 6:15; Gal. 2:17; 3:21; 6:14). It is possibly a Hebrew idiom.

9:15 This is a quote from Exod. 33:19 (see notes online). God is free to act according to His own redemptive purposes. Even Moses did not merit God's blessing (cf. Exod. 33:20). He was a murdered (cf. Exod. 2:11-15). The theological key is that His choices are always in mercy (cf. Rom. 9:16, 18-23; 11:30,31,32).

SPECIAL TOPIC: CHARACTERISTICS OF ISRAEL'S GOD (OT)

9:15-16 "mercy" This Greek word (eleos, cf. Rom. 9:15,16,18,23; 11:30,31,32) is used in the Septuagint (LXX) to translate the Hebrew term hesed (remember the writers of the NT were Hebrew thinkers writing in street Greek), which meant "steadfast, covenant loyalty." God's mercy and election are plural, corporate, (Jews [Isaac], not Arabs [Ishmael]; Israel [Jacob], not Edom [Esau], but believing Jews and believing Gentiles, cf. Rom. 9:24) as well as individuals. This truth is one of the keys to unlocking the mystery of the doctrine of predestination.

The other key in the context of Romans 9-11 is God's unchanging character—mercy (cf. Rom. 9:15,16,18,23; 11:30,31,32), and not human performance. Mercy will eventually reach all who believe in Christ. Mercy opens the door of faith to all (cf. Rom. 5:18-19).

SPECIAL TOPIC: YHWH'S ETERNAL REDEMPTIVE PLAN

SPECIAL TOPIC: LOVINGKINDNESS (HESED)

SPECIAL TOPIC: PREDESTINATION

9:17-18 Verse 17 is a powerful quote from Exod. 9:16; verse 18 is the conclusion drawn from the quote. Pharaoh is said to have hardened his own heart in Exod. 8:15,19,32; 9:34. God is said to have hardened his heart in Exod. 4:21; 7:3; 9:12; 10:20,27; 11:10. This example is used to show God's sovereignty (cf. Rom. 9:18). Pharaoh is responsible for his choices. God uses Pharaoh's arrogant, stubborn personality to accomplish His will for Israel (cf. Rom. 9:18).

Also notice the purpose of God's actions with Pharaoh were redemptive in purpose; and inclusive in scope. They were intended:

to show God's power (versus the Egyptian nature and animal gods, as Genesis 1 does to the Babylonian astral deities)
to reveal Israel's God to Egypt and, by implication, the whole earth (cf. Rom. 9:17)
Western (American) thought magnifies the individual, but eastern thought focuses on the need of the corporate whole. God used Pharaoh to reveal Himself to a needy world. He will do the same with unbelieving Israel (cf. Romans 11). In this context the rights of the one diminishes in light of the needs of the whole. Remember, also the corporate OT examples of

Job's original children dying because of God's discussion with Satan (cf. Job 1-2).
the Israeli soldiers dying because of Achan's sin (cf. Joshua 7).
David's first child with Bathsheba dying because of David's sin (cf. 2 Sam. 12:15).
We are all affected by the choices of others. This corporality can be seen in the NT in Rom. 5:12-21.
 
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: ROMANS 9:19-26
19You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?" 20On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it? 21Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? 22What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? 23And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, 24even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles. 25As He says also in Hosea,
"I will call those who were not My people, 'My people,'
And her who was not beloved, 'beloved.'"
"26And it shall be that in the place where it was said to them, 'you are not My people,'
There they shall be called sons of the living God."

9:19 "who resists His will" This is a PERFECT ACTIVE INDICATIVE, which emphasized a settled fact with continuing results (cf. 2 Chr. 20:6; Job 9:12; Ps. 135:6; Dan. 4:35). The diatribe continues. Logically, following Paul's diatribe is the best way to outline and understand Paul's thought. See chapter introduction, B., 1. God's will needs to be seen on two levels.

The first level is His redemptive plans for all of the fallen human race (cf. Gen. 3:15). These plans are unaffected by individual human choice.
But on the second level, God chooses to use human instrumentality (cf. Exod. 3:7-9 and 10). People are chosen to accomplish His plans (both positively, Moses, and negatively, Pharaoh).
9:20-21 This imagery is taken from Isa. 29:16; 45:9-13; 64:8 and Jer. 18:1-12 9 (see notes online). The imagery of YHWH as a potter was often used for God as creator because mankind comes from clay (cf. Gen. 2:7). Paul drove home his point of the sovereignty of the creator by the use of three more questions—the first two in Rom. 9:20 and the third in Rom. 9:21. The last question returns to the analogy of God's positive choice in Moses and negative choice in Pharaoh. This same contrast is seen in

Isaac ‒ Ishmael, Rom. 9:8-9
Jacob ‒ Esau in Rom. 9:10-12
the nation of Israel and the nation of Edom in Rom. 9:13
This same analogy is developed to reflect Paul's contemporary situation of believing and unbelieving Jews. God's positive choice is ultimately expressed in the inclusion of believing Gentiles (Rom. 9:24-29,30-33)!

The grammatical form expects

a "no" answer to the question of Rom. 9:20
a "yes" answer to the question in Rom. 9:21
9:22 "if" This is a partial FIRST CLASS CONDITIONAL SENTENCE which is assumed true from the author's perspective, but with no grammatical conclusion. Verses 22-24 are one sentence in Greek. Verse 22 expresses the redemptive character of God. God is a God of justice. He will hold humanity accountable for their deeds. But He is also a God of mercy. All humans deserve to die (cf. Rom. 1:18-3:21). Justice is not good news! God's character is primarily mercy, not wrath (cf. Deut.5:9-10; 7:9; Hos. 11:8-9). His choices are for redemption (cf. Ezek. 36:22-33). He is patient with sinful mankind (cf. Ezek. 18). He even uses evil for His redemptive purposes (e.g., Satan, Pharaoh, Witch of Endor, Assyria, Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus, and in Romans 11, unbelieving Israel)!

SPECIAL TOPIC: THE FALL OF MANKIND


NASB  "willing to demonstrate His wrath"
NKJV  "wanting to show His wrath"
NRSV  "desiring to show his wrath"
TEV, Peshitta  "wanted to show his anger"
NJB  "is ready to show his anger"
REB  "to display his retribution"
God demonstrates His wrath to make known both His power (cf. Rom. 9:22) and the riches of His glory (cf. Rom. 9:23). God's actions always have redemptive purposes (except Gehenna, which is the final isolation of incalcitrant unbelief and sin).

SPECIAL TOPIC: GEHENNA

"vessels of wrath" This term continues Paul's imagery of the clay from Rom. 9:20 and 21. They obviously refer to unbelieving human beings who God uses to further His plan of redemption.


NASB, NKJV  "prepared"
NRSV  "are made"
TEV  "doomed"
NJB  "designed"
REB  "tolerated"
Peshitta  "bring wrath"

This is a PERFECT PASSIVE PARTICIPLE. The word is used in the papyri (Moulton and Milligan) of something prepared for its full destiny. Rebellious unbelief will have its day of justice and consequences. However, God chooses to use unbelievers to accomplish His wider, inclusive, redemptive purposes.

M. R. Vincent, Word Studies, vol. 2, says "Not fitted by God for destruction, but in an ADJECTIVAL sense, ready, ripe for destruction, the participle denoting a present state previously formed, but giving no hint of how it has been formed" (p. 716).

"destruction" See SPECIAL TOPIC: DESTRUCTION

9:23 "to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy" This purpose clause shows God's eternal intent (i.e., mercy). The VERB is an AORIST ACTIVE SUBJUNCTIVE. God made His riches known in sending Jesus!

Paul often refers to the riches of

His kindness and forbearance and patience, Rom. 2:4
His glory to vessels of mercy, Rom. 9:23
His grace, Eph. 1:7
the glory of His inheritance, Eph. 1:18
His grace in kindness toward us in Christ, Eph. 2:7
Christ to the Gentiles, Eph. 3:8
His glory, Eph. 3:16
the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory, Col. 1:27
 
"which He prepared beforehand for glory" This same truth is stated in Rom. 8:29-30 and Eph. 1:4,11. This chapter is the strongest expression of God's sovereignty in the NT. There can be no dispute that God is in total charge of creation and redemption! This great truth should never be softened or finessed. However, it must be balanced with God's choice of covenant as a means of relating to human creation, made in His image. It is surely true that some OT covenants, like Gen. 9:8-17 and15:12-21, are unconditional and do not relate at all to human response, but other covenants are conditional on human response (i.e., Eden, Noah, Moses, David). God has a plan of redemption for His creation, no human can affect this plan. God has chosen to allow individuals to participate in His plans. This opportunity for participation is a theological tension between sovereignty (Romans 9) and human free will (Romans 10).

It is not appropriate to select one biblical emphasis and ignore another. There is tension between doctrines because eastern people present truth in dialectical or tension-filled pairs. Doctrines must be held in relationship to other doctrines. Truth is a mosaic of truths.

There is surely mystery here! Paul does not draw the logical conclusion to unbelievers prepared (kataptizō) for wrath (Rom. 9:22) and believers prepared (proetoimazō) for glory (Rom. 9:23). Is God's choice the only factor or is God's choice based on mercy for all, but some reject His offer? Does humanity have any part in their own future (cf. Rom. 9:30-10:21)? For me the concept of covenant unites both sovereignty and human freedom, with the emphasis on God's mercy and redemeptive purpose. Humanity can only respond to the initiatives of God (e.g., John 6:44,65). But for me, God's character is not capricious, but merciful. He reaches out to all conscious human creation made in His image (cf. Gen. 1:26,27). I struggle with this context. It is so powerful, yet it paints in black and white. Its focus is Jewish unbelief, which results in Gentile inclusion (Romans 11)! But this is not the only text on the character of God!

SPECIAL TOPIC: COVENANT

SPECIAL TOPIC: YHWH'S ETERNAL REDEMPTIVE PLAN

"glory" See note at Rom. 3:23.

SPECIAL TOPIC: GLORY (NT)

SPECIAL TOPIC: GLORY (OT)

9:24 This verse shows that the object of God's promise is wider than just racial Israel. God has shown mercy on mankind based on His choice.

The promise of Gen. 3:15 is related to all mankind (because there is no Israel until Genesis 12).
The call of Abraham related to all mankind, Gen. 12:3.
The call of Israel as a kingdom of priests related to all mankind (cf. Exod. 19:5-6)!
This is the mystery of God, which was hidden, but is now fully revealed (cf. Eph. 2:11-3:13; Gal. 3:28; Col. 3:11).
Paul's assertion in Rom. 9:24 will be illustrated by a series of OT quotes (Rom. 9:25-29). Initially referring to Abraham's descendants, but now quoted to refer to Gentiles (see note at v. 33).

Rom. 9:25, Hosea 2:23
Rom. 9:26, Hosea 1:10b
Rom. 9:27, Isaiah 10:22 and/or Hosea 1:10a
Rom. 9:28, Isaiah 10:23
Rom. 9:29, Isaiah 1:9
9:25-26 In context this passage is from the Septuagint (LXX) of Hosea 2:23 (with some modifications) and Hosea 1:10, where it referred to the Northern Ten Tribes, but here Paul refers to Gentiles. This is typical of NT authors' use of the OT. They saw the church as the fulfillment of the promises to Israel (cf. Gal. 6:16; Titus 2:14; 1 Pet. 2:5-9; Rev. 1:6). In its original Hebrew context the passage in Hosea refers to faithless Israel. If God could restore the idolatrous Northern Ten Tribes, Paul saw this as evidence of the love and forgiveness of God that would one day even include the idolatrous pagans (Gentiles).

SPECIAL TOPIC: YHWH'S ETERNAL REDEMPTIVE PLAN

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: ROMANS 9:27-29
27Isaiah cries out concerning Israel, "Though the number of the sons of Israel be like the sand of the sea, it is the remnant that will be saved; 28for the Lord will execute His word on the earth, thoroughly and quickly." 29And just as Isaiah foretold,
"Unless the Lord of Sabaoth had left to us a posterity,
We would have become like Sodom, and would have resembled Gomorrah."

9:27-28 This is a loose quote from the Septuagint (LXX) of Isaiah 10:22-23. The Textus Receptus added a concluding phrase from the Septuagint of Isa. 10:23. But it is absent from the ancient Greek manuscripts P46, א, A, and B, which shows it was a later addition by a copyist. The UBS4 rates its omission as "certain."

9:27
NASB, NKJV, NRSV, NJB, REB, Peshitta  "though"
TEV  "even if"
This is a THIRD CLASS CONDITIONAL SENTENCE (ean plus the SUBJUNCTIVE MOOD), which denotes potential action.

"like the sand of the sea" This is part of the metaphorical, hyperbolic language of God's promises to Abraham's descendants. Examples:

as dust of the earth ‒ Gen. 13:16; 28:14; Num. 23:10
as the stars of the heavens ‒ Gen. 15:5; 26:4; Deut. 1:10; 10:22
as the grains of sand on the seashores ‒ Gen. 22:17; 32:12; Exod. 32:13
 
"the remnant that will be saved" The term "remnant" is used often in the OT Prophets to refer to those Israelites who were taken into exile, but would be brought back to the promised land by God. In Paul's use of the term, it refers to those Jews who had a faith relationship with God and/or those who heard the gospel and responded by faith to Christ.

Even within Covenant Israel a spiritual separation occurred, only some were right with God. Israel's election did not exclude the need for an individual faith response (cf. Isa. 1:16-20).

Paul is using the OT phrase which initially referred to Jewish exiles, only a few of whom returned to Palestine, to refer to those who heard the gospel, but the large number of them also did not believe and receive Christ. Only a small percentage of first century hearers (Jews and Gentiles) responded to the gospel message. Paul calls those who did, the remnant.

SPECIAL TOPIC: THE REMNANT, THREE SENSES

9:28
NASB  "thoroughly and quickly"
NKJV  "finish. . .cut it short"
NRSV  "quickly and decisively"
TEV  "quickly settle his full account"
NJB  "without hesitation or delay"
REB  "will be summary and final"
NIV  "with speed and finality"
NET  "completely and quickly"
Peshitta  "bring to pass"
The two Greek words involve a word play (sun compounds so common in Paul).

suntelōn, PRESENT ACTIVE PARTICIIPLE of
sun
teleō
which basically means "to consummate" or "be fully realized" (cf. Mark 13:4; Luke 4:2,13; Acts 21:27; Heb. 8:8)

suntemnōn, PRESENT ACTIVE PARTICIIPLE of
sun
temnō

which basically means "to cut short" or "to execute quickly" (found only here, but a related form is in Acts 24:4)

Where these sound plays are used, only the immediate context, not etymology or parallels, is helpful.

God has a purpose and plan for the salvation of His true people and His judgment of all others!

This verse is difficult to interpret so several later scribes tried to add phrases to clarify what they thought it meant. The UBS4 gives the shortest text and "A" rating (certain).

9:29 This is a quote from the LXX of Isaiah 1:9, which denounces the sinfulness of national Israel.

"Lord of Sabaoth" This was an OT title for YHWH, usually translated "Lord of Hosts" (cf. James 5:4). Depending on the context, this referred to God

in a military sense, "captain of the army of heaven" (cf. Josh. 5:13-15)
in an administrative sense, usually a Babylonian astral polytheism context relating to the heavenly bodies, "Lord of the heavenly bodies." Stars are creations, not gods; they do not control or shape events (cf. Gen. 1:16; Ps. 8:3; 147:4; Isa. 40:26).
SPECIAL TOPIC: LORD OF HOSTS


NASB  "unless. . .had left to us a posterity"
NKJV  "unless. . .had left us a seed"
NRSV  "had not left survivors"
TEV, REB  "had not left us some descendants"
NJB  "not left us a few survivors"
Peshitta  "had not increased the remnant"
The Hebrew text of Isa. 1:9 has "remnant," but the Septuagint translated it "seed" (NKJV). God's judgment of Israel always spared

the believing remnant
the Messianic line
God spared the few to reach the many.

"Sodom. . .Gomorrah" Verse 28 related to God's judgment. This verses specifically mentions two pagan cities which were destroyed by God in Gen. 19:24-26, but they became an idiom for God's judgment (cf. Deut. 29:34; Isa. 13:19; Jer. 20:16; 49:18; 50:40; Amos 4:11).

SPECIAL TOPIC: HOMOSEXUALITY

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: ROMANS 9:30-33
30What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith; 31but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. 32Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone, 33just as it is written,
"Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense,
And he who believes in Him will not be disappointed."

9:30-31 This is the surprising conclusion of God's electing purpose. It is inclusive, not restrictive! Verses 30-33 are a summary of Romans 9 and an introduction to Romans 10. Believing Gentiles are made right with God, but not all Jews (cf. Rom. 9:6)!

God deals with all mankind in a covenantal way. God always takes the initiative and sets the conditions. However, individuals must respond by repentance and faith, obedience, and perseverance. Are humans saved

by God's sovereignty
by God's mercy through faith in the Messiah's finished work
by an act of personal faith?
Yes, yes, yes!

For me, all three are true. This is the mystery Romans 9-10 holds in tension.

For a word study on "pursue" see note at Rom. 14:19.

SPECIAL TOPIC: COVENANT

SPECIAL TOPIC: ELECTION
 

Similar threads

Logikos
Thru the Bible—Romans
Replies
2
Views
57
civic
civic
S
Romans - Outside In
2
Replies
28
Views
214
Swordman
S
S
Romans - Outside In
Replies
12
Views
106
praise_yeshua
P
civic
The Conflation of the Calvinist
6 7 8
Replies
140
Views
1K
civic
civic
civic
The Calvinists misunderstanding of the New Birth as taught by Jesus to Nicodemus
2 3
Replies
51
Views
370
Presby02
P
Back
Top Bottom