Justification and Law in Paul

[Andre]

The reason Pharoah is mentioned is not because Paul is arguing for any kind of relationship between Pharoah and the redemption of Israel but the reason is spelled out for you in the introduction to Pharoah and the conclusion to Pharoah:

15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
17

18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

Pharoah is placed in the midst of Paul's argument proving that God sovereignly chooses on whom he will have mercy and whom he hardeneth. HE IS NOT TRYING TO PROVE ANY OTHER POINT. Pharoah is inserted as example of one that God sovereignly chooses to harden rather than have mercy upon. Just look at verses 15-16 and the "therefore" in verse 18 and if you cannot see that you cannot see anything - period!!

You simply deny what Paul writes - and how can anyone argue with that?

Here is what Paul actually writes about Pharoah:

For 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."

As you have already been shown, Paul is quoting from this text:

And (K)the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he did not listen to them, just as the LORD had spoken to Moses.

13Then the LORD said to Moses, "(L)Rise up early in the morning and stand before Pharaoh and say to him, 'Thus says the LORD, the God of the Hebrews, "(M)Let My people go, that they may serve Me.
14"For this time I will send all My plagues on you and your servants and your people, so that (N)you may know that there is no one like Me in all the earth. 15"For if by now I had put forth My hand and struck you and your people with pestilence, you would then have been cut off from the earth. 16"But, indeed, (O)for this reason I have allowed you to remain, in order to show you My power and in order to proclaim My name through all the earth.
And we all know how God "showed His power" to the world - He delivered the Jews through the Exodus.

You are engaging in a strange kind of exegesis. Paul tells us why Pharoah was hardened by sending us back to the well-known story of God's redemption of Israel from slavery in Egypt.

To suggest that Paul is not saying that Pharoah in order to reveal the power of God in delivering Israel is to both deny Paul's clear allusion and to deny one of the most central elements of Jewish tradition - the exodus.

Whereever Paul is going in the overall argument in which the Pharaoh account is provided is one thing.

But the readers are not fools! (or I hope they are not). Within the specific context of the Pharoah example, Pharaoh was not hardened to send him to hell (even if he did end up there).

He was hardened so that God could deliver the Jews out his hand, and thereby demonstrate God's power to the world.

The text says what it says, Dr. W.

Now, I agree that Paul is not ultimately making an argument about the deliverance of national Israel in Romans 9. But you have to take Paul at his word and not decide that you know better - he tells us why Pharoah was hardened.

Why do you not believe him?

 

[Andre]

About Pharoah: We must not let our tradition trump what Paul actually writes. And Paul writes what he writes: Immediately after introducing Pharoah, he makes a reference to an Old Testament text that places Pharoah in a situation where he is hardened to resist letting the Jews go.

Why people implicitly say "tut, tut, Paul - we know that you are really intending to tell us that Pharoah has been hardened to send him to hell" is beyond me.

The man writes what he writes! Pharaoh was hardened to resist the redemption of the Jews in the exodus. Result: When God finally delivers them, God's power would indeed be shown. If Pharoah had said "OK, please go ahead and leave", God would not have needed to part the Red Sea, etc.

There is an important exegetical principle here - letting Paul dictate the terms of his own argument rather than revising what he has written.

Yes, the argument of Romans is not ultimately about the deliverance of the nation of Israel. And yes, in his overall arguments, Paul is indeed making a general point about God hardening people. But let's not trump what Paul says.

He writes what he writes! Pharoah was hardened to let God make a great act of redemption, not so that Pharoah winds up in hell (even if does wind up there).

I can just see Paul looking down on us and asking. Why do people not take me seriously when I wrote this:

For 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."

And to make it even easier for us, he quotes from an Old Testament passage where the context is the matter of hardening Pharoah's heart in respet to the Jews trying to leave Egypt.

I can imagine Paul shaking his head in abject disbelief.

 

[Andre]

Pharoah is placed in the midst of Paul's argument proving that God sovereignly chooses on whom he will have mercy and whom he hardeneth. HE IS NOT TRYING TO PROVE ANY OTHER POINT.

Well, I never said that Paul was not making an argument about "hardening". I think he is - his ultimate conclusion is that God has hardened the Jews so that the Gentiles can be saved.

You seem to simply assume that Paul is making an general argument about the "predestination" of individuals to heaven or hell. Well, you need to actually make that case - not simply assume it. And' likewise", I need to make the case that Paul's ultimate argument here is about the hardening of the Jews to save Gentiles.

Note also, there are only two classes of people being considered (1) those whom God will have mercy and (2) those whom God hardenth. The same two classes are continued in verses 20-23.

You cannot simply assume that Paul is making an argument about the fates of all people. The text reads perfectly well as a statement that God has hardened Jews so that the church can include both Jews and Gentile.

The ONLY example of hardening is not a Jew but Pharoah a gentile.

This does not matter, for reasons I have already provided - if Paul's ultimate point is that God has hardened the Jews to save the world, then one way he could make that case is to give examples of God hardening people.

And Pharoah is a perfect example. The fact that he is a Gentile is immaterial if Paul is making the case I suggest he is making. And I intend to argue this case in much greater detail.

 

[Dr. Walter]

You are the one egaged in strange exegesis. PAUL DOES NOT QUOTE THAT ASPECT OF THE PASSAGE IN EXODUS because it is not valid to his contextual based argument in Romans 9:15-18. In Romans 9:15-18 he is not arguing about WHY he raised up Pharoah in regard to Israel, he is arguing that God has the right to have mercy or harden whom he pleases and Pharoah is given as an example of that RIGHT to raise up for the purpose of hardening.

Your position depends on going back into Exodus and quoting what Paul did not quote to prove a position that Paul is not even considering. Paul's point is not about Pharoah's relationship to Israel's redemption but about God's right to harden whom He pleases and Paul only quotes that portion that has to do with the point he is making which is made cyrstal clear by verses 15-16 and the conclusion drawn in verse 18. If Paul had your view in mind the conclusion would be different in verse 18 as your position would have verse 18 reading:

18 "Therefore, God raises up such men in order to show his power to deliver Israel from the ungodly"

instead of:

18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

In addition, the objection in verse 19 is drawn from the conclusion in verse 18. The objector rightly concludes IF God sovereignly has mercy on whom He will and hardens whom he will then how can God hold accountable those whom he hardens as no one can resist or overthrow His will. Verses 20-24 is given to respond to that argument by REINFORCING God's sovereign right to do what He wills with his own as the potter has the right to do what he wills with the clay.

You simply deny what Paul writes - and how can anyone argue with that?

Here is what Paul actually writes about Pharoah:

For 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."

As you have already been shown, Paul is quoting from this text:

And (K)the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he did not listen to them, just as the LORD had spoken to Moses.

13Then the LORD said to Moses, "(L)Rise up early in the morning and stand before Pharaoh and say to him, 'Thus says the LORD, the God of the Hebrews, "(M)Let My people go, that they may serve Me.
14"For this time I will send all My plagues on you and your servants and your people, so that (N)you may know that there is no one like Me in all the earth. 15"For if by now I had put forth My hand and struck you and your people with pestilence, you would then have been cut off from the earth. 16"But, indeed, (O)for this reason I have allowed you to remain, in order to show you My power and in order to proclaim My name through all the earth.
And we all know how God "showed His power" to the world - He delivered the Jews through the Exodus.

You are engaging in a strange kind of exegesis. Paul tells us why Pharoah was hardened by sending us back to the well-known story of God's redemption of Israel from slavery in Egypt.

To suggest that Paul is not saying that Pharoah in order to reveal the power of God in delivering Israel is to both deny Paul's clear allusion and to deny one of the most central elements of Jewish tradition - the exodus.

Whereever Paul is going in the overall argument in which the Pharaoh account is provided is one thing.

But the readers are not fools! (or I hope they are not). Within the specific context of the Pharoah example, Pharaoh was not hardened to send him to hell (even if he did end up there).

He was hardened so that God could deliver the Jews out his hand, and thereby demonstrate God's power to the world.

The text says what it says, Dr. W.

Now, I agree that Paul is not ultimately making an argument about the deliverance of national Israel in Romans 9. But you have to take Paul at his word and not decide that you know better - he tells us why Pharoah was hardened.

Why do you not believe him?

 

[Dr. Walter]

This context is not about overcoming problems that hinder the salvation of Israel. Romans 9:6-8 is about overcoming the objection that God has not kept his promise to Abraham in saving the "children of promise."

6 ¶ Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

Romans 9:9-13 is about the defining characteristics of "the children of promise"

1. They are not the children after the flesh like Ishmael
2. They are supernatural born children like Isaac
3. They are elected children before birth based on grace not works like Jacob

Romans 9:14-23 is concerned with those who object to the limitations in Romans 9:6-8 and the restrictive definitions of "the children of promise" in Romans 9:8-13.

You are exactly the kind of person that Paul was answering. The kind that denies that God has the right to choose some over others. The right to save some and allow others to continue in their sins.

About Pharoah: We must not let our tradition trump what Paul actually writes. And Paul writes what he writes: Immediately after introducing Pharoah, he makes a reference to an Old Testament text that places Pharoah in a situation where he is hardened to resist letting the Jews go.

Why people implicitly say "tut, tut, Paul - we know that you are really intending to tell us that Pharoah has been hardened to send him to hell" is beyond me.

The man writes what he writes! Pharaoh was hardened to resist the redemption of the Jews in the exodus. Result: When God finally delivers them, God's power would indeed be shown. If Pharoah had said "OK, please go ahead and leave", God would not have needed to part the Red Sea, etc.

There is an important exegetical principle here - letting Paul dictate the terms of his own argument rather than revising what he has written.

Yes, the argument of Romans is not ultimately about the deliverance of the nation of Israel. And yes, in his overall arguments, Paul is indeed making a general point about God hardening people. But let's not trump what Paul says.

He writes what he writes! Pharoah was hardened to let God make a great act of redemption, not so that Pharoah winds up in hell (even if does wind up there).

I can just see Paul looking down on us and asking. Why do people not take me seriously when I wrote this:

For 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."

And to make it even easier for us, he quotes from an Old Testament passage where the context is the matter of hardening Pharoah's heart in respet to the Jews trying to leave Egypt.

I can imagine Paul shaking his head in abject disbelief.

 

[Dr. Walter]

You cannot read Romans 11 back into Romans 9 as they deal with two very different objections.

1. Romans 9 deals with the objection that God has failed to keep His promise to Abraham because some Jews have rejected Christ.

2. Romans 11 deals with the objection that God has utterly rejected Israel as a nation because they have rejected Christ.

What is very amusing is your reactions to simply the precise language of the texts. I simply point out the precise language but you react by defining the obvious meaning of that language:


Originally Posted by Dr. Walter
Pharoah is placed in the midst of Paul's argument proving that God sovereignly chooses on whom he will have mercy and whom he hardeneth. HE IS NOT TRYING TO PROVE ANY OTHER POINT.

You seem to simply assume that Paul is making an general argument about the "predestination" of individuals to heaven or hell. Well, you need to actually make that case - not simply assume it. - Andre

You assume ("You SEEM to simply imply") that the very language is "about the 'predestination' of individuals". There is no assumption here as the text explicitly and precisely states God will have mercy on whom he will have mercy and on whom he will he hardeneth - NO CONDITIONS STATED just absolute sovereignty stated.

Likewise, in the illustration of the potter - NO CONDITIONS STATED just absolute sovereignty stated

 

[Dr. Walter]

Andre, You read into the text what you want it to say. You ignore the developmental context. You add what is not there in order to avoid what is there. You refuse to allow the context define what it means and what it means is very very simple and straightforward:

1. God has not broken His promise to Abraham because God did not promise Abraham every child born after the flesh would be "the children of promise"

2. Only the children born after the pattern of Isaac are the children of promise - supernatural birth

3. Only the children born after the pattern of Jacob are the children of promise - chosen according to the election of grace before physical birth and thus before having done any personal good or evil

4. Only those children whom God has set his love upon as Jacob - chosen before hand.

5. God is perfectly righteous and just to have mercy upon whom he will and harden whom he wills

6. God is perfectly righteous and just to make one vessel to honor and anothor to dishonor

7. God is perfectly righteous and just to "prepare" vessels of mercy for glory and to patiently put up with vessels fitted to destruction.

Why is God perfectly just to do so? Because the term "mercy" refers to those who justly deserve destruction and therefore the "same lump" is the FALLEN lump of mankind that according to strict justice deserves "destruction" of the whole lump.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Dear Reader,

Romans 9:15-23 has one key word used all the way through. That key word is "MERCY."

The difference between MERCY and GRACE is that mercy is God holding back deserved PUNISHMENT whereas grace is giving you BLESSINGS or what you don't merit or deserve.

All those upon whom God has "mercy" upon and are "vessels of MERCY" who according to JUSTICE deserve judgement and destruction.

Hence, the whole basis of Paul's argument is in regard to FALLEN MAN which deserves wrath not salvation. Unfallen man does not need either mercy or grace as there is no judgement against him and no salvation necessary for him as he has not fallen into sin.

In the potter's illustration "the same lump" represents FALLEN MANKIND as those prepared to glory are vessels of "MERCY". Thus those "fitted to destruction" are fitted according to their own fallen, rebellious, resistant, God hating, God resisting nature. This is why Paul says that God "endures" with much longsuffering those "fitted to wrath." What is it to be an enemy of God? It is simply to freely choose to be, do and say those things God hates (Rom. 8:7).

God is just if he cast the whole lump of fallen mankind into destruction as that is what they JUSTLY deserve. God is therefore just in allowing those "fitted to destruction" to freely go on their way to destruction by their own free choice. God is merciful in saving any as the salvation of any must be considered a "vessel of MERCY."

What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

This text alone disproves Andre's contention that these vessels are hardened simply to allow salvation to come to the Jews because:

1. Salvation does not come to Jews alone - vv. 24-33
2. The vessels of dishonor are subjects of "his wrath" and "vessels of wrath fitted to destruction." Not merely temporary hardening but ultimate destruction.

 

[Andre]

Is there anyone other than Dr. W and I reading this thread?

 

[Dr. Walter]

Is there anyone other than Dr. W and I reading this thread?

No! Because what you are teaching is utter nonsense.

 

[Andre]

No! Because what you are teaching is utter nonsense.

Thanks for setting me straight. If you had only said this earlier, I could have avoided all those detailed biblical arguments that support my case.

But since I now know my position is "utter nonsense", I shall now join the others here and sit at your feet and be educated.raying:

 

[Andre]

You are the one egaged in strange exegesis. PAUL DOES NOT QUOTE THAT ASPECT OF THE PASSAGE IN EXODUS because it is not valid to his contextual based argument in Romans 9:15-18. In Romans 9:15-18 he is not arguing about WHY he raised up Pharoah in regard to Israel, he is arguing that God has the right to have mercy or harden whom he pleases and Pharoah is given as an example of that RIGHT to raise up for the purpose of hardening.

I wish you would read my posts more carefully. I never denied that Paul's ultimate point was about God having the right to harden. In fact I have clearly stated that Paul is indeed making an argument about God having the right to harden people, leading to the ultimate point of the argument, namely that God has the right to harden Israel.

In case you are saying that Paul's ultimate point is about something other than the hardening of Israel to save Gentiles, then you will need to actually argue that point. You cannot simply assume it. And even though I have already provided substantial Biblical evidence that the "vessels of destruction" are hardened Jews, more is coming.

Your position depends on going back into Exodus and quoting what Paul did not quote to prove a position that Paul is not even considering. Paul's point is not about Pharoah's relationship to Israel's redemption but about God's right to harden whom He pleases...

Its difficult to discuss this with you since you are not reading my posts carefully. I never said that Paul's ultimate point is about Pharaoh's relation to Israel's redemption. All I did was shamelessly agree with Paul - in the Pharaoh example, Pharoah was not hardened to go to hell, he was hardened to resist the exodus.

If you are going to say that Pharaoh is an example of God hardening people to send them to hell, then you are deciding that you know better than Paul. Paul tells us what the hardening of Pharoah was about - and it has nothing to do with Pharoah going to hell.

Now, as I have said repeatedly, I agree that Paul uses Pharaoh as an example of God's right to harden people.

 

[Andre]

The reason why we should see the "vessels of destruction" as Jews and Jews only is that it make much better contextual sense than the argument that the vessels of destruction is a group that contains Gentiles.

I will make many posts to show this case, since the evidence is actually so overwhelming.

Let's start at the beginning.

I 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 (B)I could wish that I myself were (C)accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen (D)according to the flesh, 4who are (E)Israelites,

Whose sad state is Paul lamenting over? Jews and Gentiles? No. Jews.

So when, a few short sentences later, we have Paul talking about vessels of destruction, it is far more sensible to conclude that these "vessels" are Jews.

This is an example of proper use of context. A normal, coherent, and ordered thinker like Paul would not talk about the lost state of Jews (not Gentiles!) and then introduce the concept of "vessels fitted for destruction" unless he is setting forth an explanation of why the Jews are in the state they are in.

If the vessels of destruction include Gentiles, we are left with this question for Paul: "I thought you were talking about Jews being lost, so why are you suddenly talking about a class of persons destined for loss that includes Gentiles? Have you forgotten your subject, Paul".

 

[Andre]

This context is not about overcoming problems that hinder the salvation of Israel.

I fundamentally disagree. The entire chapter 9 to 11 block is Paul's explanation of why Israel is in the sad state she is in - God has hardened her in his grand redemptive purpose.

Why has he hardened her? So that salvation can be made available to the whole world.

But by their transgression salvation has come to the Gentiles,

Romans 9:6-8 is about overcoming the objection that God has not kept his promise to Abraham in saving the "children of promise."

6 ¶ Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

You are only partly right. Paul is also saying that not every genetic descendent of Abraham is a member of the children of promise. This is the opening to his argument that God has hardened those Jews who are not children of promise.

 

[Andre]

This context is not about overcoming problems that hinder the salvation of Israel.

The evidence suggests that Paul is indeed explaining why so many Jews are lost. Here are a range of texts which are consistent with the hypothesis that in Romans 9 to 11, Paul is dealing with the sad and strange fact that Israel has, at least in the main, been "lost":

I 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 (B)I could wish that I myself were (C)accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen (D)according to the flesh, 4who are (E)Israelites

Paul opens the entire section (9 to 11) with a statement of the sad lost of Israel.

But it is not as though (Q)the word of God has failed (R)For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; 7nor are they all children (S)because they are Abraham's descendants, but: "(T)THROUGH ISAAC YOUR DESCENDANTS WILL BE NAMED. That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are (U)children of God, but the (V)children of the promise are regarded as descendants. "

There is a lot going on here. But one thing is clear: having introduced the chapter with a statement of the lost state of Israel, Paul argues that even though God made a lot of promises to Israel, not all genetic Jews are the rightful "heirs" to these promises.

This is precisely the argument Paul needs to provide to explain how it is that most Jews are lost - God never promised that all Jews would be saved in the first place.

And from later in the same chapter:

Isaiah cries out concerning Israel, "(BA)THOUGH THE NUMBER OF THE SONS OF ISRAEL BE (BB)LIKE THE SAND OF THE SEA, IT IS (BC)THE REMNANT THAT WILL BE SAVED;

A clear statement that only a remnant of Israel will be saved. Again, this is exactly the kind of statement someone would make in order to explain to the reader why so many Jews are lost.

but Israel, (BJ)pursuing a law of righteousness, did not (BK)arrive at that law. 32Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works. They stumbled over (BL)the stumbling stone,
33just as it is written, "(BM)BEHOLD, I LAY IN ZION (BN)A STONE OF STUMBLING AND A ROCK OF OFFENSE,

Yet again, Paul offers an explanation of what has happened to Israel -she has "stumbled", just as has been prophecied.

It is astonishing to me that you and others do not see that this chapter is literally riddled with arguments that offer an explanation for the lost state of Israel - the very lament that Paul opens the chapter with.

Over and over again in the course of a few sentences, Paul gives Biblical reasons why we should not be surprised that Jews are lost.

And yet you claim: "This context is not about overcoming problems that hinder the salvation of Israel"

Can you explain how it is that the fact that so many Jews are lost is not the context, given that, over and over again, Paul is giving explanations for precisely the fact that, indeed, many Jews are lost?

 

[Dr. Walter]

In fact I have clearly stated that Paul is indeed making an argument about God having the right to harden people, leading to the ultimate point of the argument, namely that God has the right to harden Israel.

Paul is not attempting to develop an argument that God has the right to harden JUST Israel but all who are "children of the flesh" in contrast to "the children of promise" just as he is developing an argument that he can have mercy upon whom he will have mercy both Jews and Gentiles.

In regard to Israel as a nation, Paul denies that every individual physical born Jew is one of the promised Children:

Rom. 9:8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.


However, Paul cannot make such a denial without demonstrating how they are distinguished from one another and that is precisely what you are either ignorning or denying in verses 9-13. They are distinguished in the examples provided Isaac versus Ishmael and Jacob versus Esau.

In the case of Isaac versus the other seven children of Abraham by his wives Keturah and Hagar the distinction is clear - Isaac was a supernatural birth and this distinguished him from the children of the flesh and this is exactly the characteristic Paul applies to both Jews and Gentiles who are the children of promise:

Rom. 8:99 For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son.


Gal. 4:28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.

So the first distinctive characteristic between the children of the flesh and the children of promise is a SUPERNATURAL BIRTH where God is bringing it about not by the will of the flesh or the will of man but wholly by the will of God.

The second distinction between the children of the flesh and the children of Promise is illustrated in the birth of Jacob and Esau.

Rom. 9:10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;
11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth
12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
.

This is the distinction of election of grace before they were born, before they did anything to merit or demerit. Jacob was part of God's promised seed whereas Esau was not. God set his elective love upon Jacob before the foundation of the world as he did those Jews and Gentiles at Thessalonica:

2 Thes. 2:13 ¶ But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:

Paul told the saved Jews and Gentiles at Ephesus the very same thing:

Eph. 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

Of course Paul anticipated people like you and that you would object to such a teaching:

Rom. 9:14 ¶ What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid

Romans 9:15-18 is simply Paul's response to this objection that comes from persons like you who would say that is not right. However, Paul goes on to defend that God has the right to reject Esau and have mercy upon Jacob just as he later had the right to harden Pharoah.

Romans 9:19-24 continues to defend His right to reject Esau and Pharoah - both Jew and Gentiles and harden them but have mercy upon Isaac's and Jacobs as with all the children of promise who are of Jews and Gentiles (v. 24).

This is the clear, simple and straight forward teaching and yes, you do need to sit at my feet and learn this.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I fundamentally disagree. The entire chapter 9 to 11 block is Paul's explanation of why Israel is in the sad state she is in - God has hardened her in his grand redemptive purpose.

Why has he hardened her? So that salvation can be made available to the whole world.[/COLOR]

No, the "entire" section 9-11 is not devoted to explaining why God has hardened Israel! That is only the PRIMARY subject of chapter 11. It is not the PRIMARY subject of chapter 9 or 10. You cannot take chapter 11 and read it back into chapters 9-10.

You are correct that this entire block of chapters is dealing primarily with Israel BUT in relationship with the Gentiles and in regard to different things.

1. Chapter nine deals with the promise made to Abraham and why it does not apply to every Jews but only to the children of promise among them - thus God's sovereign right to choose whom He will have mercy upon and whom he will harden among Israel as well as among all mankind.

2. Chapter ten deals with the chosen means to save the children of promise out of Israel and out of the Gentiles.

3. Chapter elven deals with God's purpose in hardening Israel so that the children of promise among the gentiles will be saved.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Another reason that your interpretation of Romans 9 is fundementally in error is because it is inconsistent with your own argument. You argue that Romans 9:15-23 justifies God's right to harden Israel as a NATION in order to go to the Gentiles.

However, in Romans 9:6-14 you interpret Isaac and Jacob to personify the NATION of Israel but if that were the case (which it is not) then you would have Paul arguing for Israel's elective salvation in Romans 9:6-14 rather than hardening but then in verses 15-23 reversing his argument to hardening instead of salvation. Hence, your position and interpretation are self-contradictory.

But it is clear from the transitional language that verses 15-18 is arguing in support of statements made in verses 6-13 rather than making a contrast as your position requires. Verses 15-18 are answering the objection raised in verse 14 against what he has stated in verses 9-13. In addition verses 19-23 is further defending the conclusion he made in verse 18.

So your own argument and intepretations contradict themselves and contradict the transitional texts that demonstrate that what Paul has stated to be the truth in verses 6-13 is what he is further defending against the objection to it in verse 14 and that verses 19-23 is a further defense against the objection rasied against his conclusion in verse 18.

In contrast, my interpretation of Romans 9:6-23 below is consistent and harmonizes with the developed thought.

Paul is not attempting to develop an argument that God has the right to harden JUST Israel but all who are "children of the flesh" in contrast to "the children of promise" just as he is developing an argument that he can have mercy upon whom he will have mercy both Jews and Gentiles.

In regard to Israel as a nation, Paul denies that every individual physical born Jew is one of the promised Children:

Rom. 9:8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.


However, Paul cannot make such a denial without demonstrating how they are distinguished from one another and that is precisely what you are either ignorning or denying in verses 9-13. They are distinguished in the examples provided Isaac versus Ishmael and Jacob versus Esau.

In the case of Isaac versus the other seven children of Abraham by his wives Keturah and Hagar the distinction is clear - Isaac was a supernatural birth and this distinguished him from the children of the flesh and this is exactly the characteristic Paul applies to both Jews and Gentiles who are the children of promise:

Rom. 8:99 For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son.


Gal. 4:28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.

So the first distinctive characteristic between the children of the flesh and the children of promise is a SUPERNATURAL BIRTH where God is bringing it about not by the will of the flesh or the will of man but wholly by the will of God.

The second distinction between the children of the flesh and the children of Promise is illustrated in the birth of Jacob and Esau.

Rom. 9:10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;
11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth
12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
.

This is the distinction of election of grace before they were born, before they did anything to merit or demerit. Jacob was part of God's promised seed whereas Esau was not. God set his elective love upon Jacob before the foundation of the world as he did those Jews and Gentiles at Thessalonica:

2 Thes. 2:13 ¶ But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:

Paul told the saved Jews and Gentiles at Ephesus the very same thing:

Eph. 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

Of course Paul anticipated people like you and that you would object to such a teaching:

Rom. 9:14 ¶ What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid

Romans 9:15-18 is simply Paul's response to this objection that comes from persons like you who would say that is not right. However, Paul goes on to defend that God has the right to reject Esau and have mercy upon Jacob just as he later had the right to harden Pharoah.

Romans 9:19-24 continues to defend His right to reject Esau and Pharoah - both Jew and Gentiles and harden them but have mercy upon Isaac's and Jacobs as with all the children of promise who are of Jews and Gentiles (v. 24).

This is the clear, simple and straight forward teaching and yes, you do need to sit at my feet and learn this.

 

[Dr. Walter]

The reason why we should see the "vessels of destruction" as Jews and Jews only is that it make much better contextual sense than the argument that the vessels of destruction is a group that contains Gentiles.

I will make many posts to show this case, since the evidence is actually so overwhelming.

Let's start at the beginning.

I 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 (B)I could wish that I myself were (C)accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen (D)according to the flesh, 4who are (E)Israelites,

Whose sad state is Paul lamenting over? Jews and Gentiles? No. Jews.

So when, a few short sentences later, we have Paul talking about vessels of destruction, it is far more sensible to conclude that these "vessels" are Jews.

This is an example of proper use of context. A normal, coherent, and ordered thinker like Paul would not talk about the lost state of Jews (not Gentiles!) and then introduce the concept of "vessels fitted for destruction" unless he is setting forth an explanation of why the Jews are in the state they are in.

If the vessels of destruction include Gentiles, we are left with this question for Paul: "I thought you were talking about Jews being lost, so why are you suddenly talking about a class of persons destined for loss that includes Gentiles? Have you forgotten your subject, Paul".

Here is the problem with your analysis above. It contains a partial truth. The partial truth is that Israel is the primary focus in chapters 9-11. However, Israel is only the PRIMARY focus not the ENTIRE focus because salvation or hardening cannot be limited to merely Israel in exclusion of the Gentiles.

I can go through each chapter as you did to point out references to the Jews but I can point out large blocks in each chapter that deal with the Gentiles so it is wrong to say that any of these chapters deals exclusively with Israel to the exclusion of the Gentiles.

Finally, there is a common ground and a contrast in each chapter in dealing with both Jews and Gentiles. The common ground is God's right to have mercy upon whom he wills and harden who he wills in regard to salvation within Israel and among gentiles (chs. 9-10). The contrast is the prominent position of Israel in God's purpose of redemption in regard to the Gentiles in one part of history as opposed to another portion of history (ch. 11).

Here is the point - all aspects of salvation are common ground for both Israel and Gentiles (chs. 9-10) but timing and preeminence in God's purpose of redemption in regard to the nation of Israel vesus Gentile nations is contrasted (ch. 11).

Of course, I don't believe for a second that you are really interested in the truth of this section of scripture but only interested in how to make it fit your presumptive theory.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DW: Of course, I don't believe for a second that you are really interested in the truth of this section of scripture but only interested in how to make it fit your presumptive theory.

HP: That could certainly be rightfully said of your approach to this passage.