Grace and Peace Jarthur001,
In Romans 9:14, Paul asks: "What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God is there? may it never be!" (9:14). If we miss the meaning of Paul's question in verse 14, we will likely come away from Romans 9 with a wrong view of what Paul is meaning to covey. It is absolutely necessary for us to udnerstand why Paul asks the question in verse 14, if we are going to be able to understand the contribution that Romans 9 gives to our understanding of election.
It is assumed by those who believe in unconditional election that Paul is raising the question of whether God was unrighteous or unjust in unconditionally choosing Jacob while rejecting Esau. Robert Haldane explains, "The Apostles anticipated the objection of the carnal mind in this doctrine. Bose not loving Jacob and hating Esau before they had done any good or evil, imply, that there is injustice with God?" Everett F. Harrison observes, "God's dealings with Jacob and Esau might be challenged as arbitrary, on the ground that Esau was the object of injustice." William S. Plumer says, "The meaning is this: Does God's treatment of Isaac and Jacob display injustice to Ishmael and Esau?" William G. T. Shedd explains. "The objection is raised that in such discrimination as that between Jacob and Esau, God acts unjustly." John Piper comments, "When Paul said that God chose to bless Jacob over Esau apart from any basis in their actions but simply on the basis of his choice (ek tou kalountos, Romans 9:12), his opponent objected that this would call God's righteousness into question (9:14).
I believe that Calvinism has wrongly interpreted the question in verse 14. They have wrongly interpreted the question in verse 14 because they ahve wrongly interpreted verses 6-13, particularly verses 11 and 12. A proper understanding of verses 6-13 should help us understand why Paul posed the question of whether there is injustice in God in verse 14.
Let's take a serious look at verses 6-13 and see what the context is for this question in verse 14.
To find out why Paul raised this question in verse 14, we need to review the context. In verses 1-3, Paul expressed his deep concern over the many Jews who were not saved. This created a serious problem for the Jews. The unbelieving Jews were not prepared for such an observation. That large numbers of Jews, who were the Covenant People of God, would be lost and under God's wrath was for them unthinkable.
We are confronted with two seemingly contradictory concepts in the New Testament concerning the Jewish viewpoint on their own salvation. The first is the concept of unconditional salvation of all Jews as the seed of Abraham. It was this viewpoint that cause John the Baptist to say, "Therefore bring forth fruit in keeping with your repentance; and do not suppose that you can say, to yourselves, we have Abraham for our fathre; for I say to you, that God is able from these stones to raise up children of Abraham" (Mt. 3:9; see also Jn. 8:33-40).
The other viewpoint is that they were depending on their own works. This viewpoint is set forth by Paul when he said, "But Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works" (Rom. 9:31-32).
It appears that these two observations about salvation among the Jews are mutually exclusive. However, from all I can gather, Jews were not as concerned with harmonization as some of us are.
Douglas J. Moo raises the question:
Who constitutes the "Israel" to whom God's promises of salvation ahve been given?
He goes on to say:
"The standard view among Paul's Jewish contemporaries was that this Israel was made up of all those physically descended from Jacob, the heir of Abraham and Isaac, who was himself named "Israel." Only those who had refused their inheritance by outright apostasy would be excluded form Israel to whom the promises belonged."
So in a certain sense the Jews of Paul's day also believed in a corporate salvation of 'all' Jews.
While Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles, he had a heavy burden for the Jews who were unsaved. I am conviniced that the burden of Paul in the Book of Romans was his deep concern that so many of his own kinsmen, the Jews, were not saved. While the most intense statement of the burden is found in 9:3, Paul's burden for the Jews comes across before we get to chapter 9.
The evidence of Paul's burden for the Jews comes early in the book. In showing that the Gentiles who had only general revelation were lost in 1:19-32, Paul took only 14 verses to make his case. In trying to show the Jews that they were lost in 2:1-3:8, he took 37 verses.
The appeal to Abraham and the Abrahamic Covenant in Romans 4 had a threefold purpose:
Why would Paul raise the question, "Is the law sin?" Because the emphasis up to this point is on what the law cannot do. The law cannot justify (3:20). The law works wrath (4:15). The law tended to make sin abound (5:20). To be out from under the law was supposed to be a plus factor so far as righteous living was concerned (6:14 and 7:6). The law stirred the passions of sins in us into activity (7:5).
We need to keep reminding ourselves how important the law was to the Jewish people of that day, especially to the Pharisees. Law to them was supreme. Even a converted Jew would have difficulty understanding the removal of law from the center of the picture. It is not hard at all to see why a Jew would raise the question, and why he would need an answer.
Against the background of thought that God has uncondtionally promised eternal life to all Jews. Paul said, "But it is not as though the Word of God has failed" (9:6). If God had unconditionally promised eternal life to all Jews through the Abrahamic Covenant, His promise would ahve failed if large numbers of Jews, as Paul taught, were unsaved. On the hand, as John Piper explains, "If Paul can show that God's ultimate 'purpose according to election' never included the salvation of every individual Israelite, then the situation described in Rom. 9:1-5 would not so easily jeopardize God's relability."
Jewish thought assumed that if masses of Jews were unsaved, that would mean that God's promise had failed. That would mean that God would be unrighteous or unjust because He would be failing to live up to His promise of eternal life to all Jews, as it was given in the Abrahamic Cavenant.
With great concern, Paul attempted to show the Jews that God's promise had not failed. He revealed that God had never promised to save all Jews.
Paul's first step in trying to convince the Jews that God had not promised salvation to all Jews was to say, "For they are not all Israel who are descended from Isreal" (9:6). In this verse, Paul is saying that the name "Israel" has a broad and a narrow use. In the broad use it refers to all of those who have descended from Abraham through Jacob. These are the Covenant Seed of Abraham. It is true that the promises of the Abrahamic Covenant were made to all of those who descended form Abraham through Jacob. But the question is: Does this mean that all are saved?
Paul is saying we are not to understand that all who have descended from Abraham through Jacob are saved. Thsi suggests that there is a second use of the name "Israel". This use of the name "Israel" refers to those who descended from Abraham through Jacob who will actually be the beneficiaries of the promises of the Abrahamic Covenant. According to Paul, these are the ones who believe in Jesus Christ for salvation. These are "True Israel".
It takes more than a mere statement on Paul's part to convince the Jew. So what follows is designed to get the Jew to come to an understanding of the truth that God did not uncondtionally promise eternal life to all who descended from Abraham through Jacob.
In verse 7 Paul observes, "Neither are they all children because they are descendants, but: 'Through Isaac your descendants will be named.'" The Jews understood wee that though Ishmael and the descendants of Abraham through his children Keturah were Abraham's descendants, they wer not considered a part of the Covenant Seed of Abraham. They werwe also well aware that not even all of the descendants of Isaac were a part of this Covenant Seed. They understood that the descendants of Isaac through Jacob were the Covenant Seed of Abraham, while the descendants of Isaac through Esau were not the Covenant Seed of Abraham.
It is important to observe that 9:10-13 are in a context which has as its purpose to show that there is no reason to believe that all the Covenant Seed of Abraham (those who descended from Abraham through Jacob) are saved. This means that verses 10-12 are used by Paul to show that not all of the natural descendants of Abraham were saved. If this consideration of the context is not taken into account, the meaning of these verses will be missed.
Verses 10-13 are of particular importance because they point out that even though God had said, "Through Isaac your descendants will be named" (verse 7), not even all fo Isaac's descendants made up the Covenant Seed of Abraham.
Long story short Paul was building a case for the Jews who assumed unconditional salvation by pointing out the fact that their assumption was flawed. In a certain sense it is irony that I am using those same verses to disprove the same belief among Calvinist. :tongue3:
Peace and God Bless.
In Romans 9:14, Paul asks: "What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God is there? may it never be!" (9:14). If we miss the meaning of Paul's question in verse 14, we will likely come away from Romans 9 with a wrong view of what Paul is meaning to covey. It is absolutely necessary for us to udnerstand why Paul asks the question in verse 14, if we are going to be able to understand the contribution that Romans 9 gives to our understanding of election.
It is assumed by those who believe in unconditional election that Paul is raising the question of whether God was unrighteous or unjust in unconditionally choosing Jacob while rejecting Esau. Robert Haldane explains, "The Apostles anticipated the objection of the carnal mind in this doctrine. Bose not loving Jacob and hating Esau before they had done any good or evil, imply, that there is injustice with God?" Everett F. Harrison observes, "God's dealings with Jacob and Esau might be challenged as arbitrary, on the ground that Esau was the object of injustice." William S. Plumer says, "The meaning is this: Does God's treatment of Isaac and Jacob display injustice to Ishmael and Esau?" William G. T. Shedd explains. "The objection is raised that in such discrimination as that between Jacob and Esau, God acts unjustly." John Piper comments, "When Paul said that God chose to bless Jacob over Esau apart from any basis in their actions but simply on the basis of his choice (ek tou kalountos, Romans 9:12), his opponent objected that this would call God's righteousness into question (9:14).
I believe that Calvinism has wrongly interpreted the question in verse 14. They have wrongly interpreted the question in verse 14 because they ahve wrongly interpreted verses 6-13, particularly verses 11 and 12. A proper understanding of verses 6-13 should help us understand why Paul posed the question of whether there is injustice in God in verse 14.
Let's take a serious look at verses 6-13 and see what the context is for this question in verse 14.
To find out why Paul raised this question in verse 14, we need to review the context. In verses 1-3, Paul expressed his deep concern over the many Jews who were not saved. This created a serious problem for the Jews. The unbelieving Jews were not prepared for such an observation. That large numbers of Jews, who were the Covenant People of God, would be lost and under God's wrath was for them unthinkable.
We are confronted with two seemingly contradictory concepts in the New Testament concerning the Jewish viewpoint on their own salvation. The first is the concept of unconditional salvation of all Jews as the seed of Abraham. It was this viewpoint that cause John the Baptist to say, "Therefore bring forth fruit in keeping with your repentance; and do not suppose that you can say, to yourselves, we have Abraham for our fathre; for I say to you, that God is able from these stones to raise up children of Abraham" (Mt. 3:9; see also Jn. 8:33-40).
The other viewpoint is that they were depending on their own works. This viewpoint is set forth by Paul when he said, "But Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works" (Rom. 9:31-32).
It appears that these two observations about salvation among the Jews are mutually exclusive. However, from all I can gather, Jews were not as concerned with harmonization as some of us are.
Douglas J. Moo raises the question:
Who constitutes the "Israel" to whom God's promises of salvation ahve been given?
He goes on to say:
"The standard view among Paul's Jewish contemporaries was that this Israel was made up of all those physically descended from Jacob, the heir of Abraham and Isaac, who was himself named "Israel." Only those who had refused their inheritance by outright apostasy would be excluded form Israel to whom the promises belonged."
So in a certain sense the Jews of Paul's day also believed in a corporate salvation of 'all' Jews.
While Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles, he had a heavy burden for the Jews who were unsaved. I am conviniced that the burden of Paul in the Book of Romans was his deep concern that so many of his own kinsmen, the Jews, were not saved. While the most intense statement of the burden is found in 9:3, Paul's burden for the Jews comes across before we get to chapter 9.
The evidence of Paul's burden for the Jews comes early in the book. In showing that the Gentiles who had only general revelation were lost in 1:19-32, Paul took only 14 verses to make his case. In trying to show the Jews that they were lost in 2:1-3:8, he took 37 verses.
The appeal to Abraham and the Abrahamic Covenant in Romans 4 had a threefold purpose:
- To show that in the convenant that God made with Abraham, faith and faith alone was the condition of justification.
- To show that Gentiles who have faith in Christ are also justified by faith alone.
- To show that it was God's plan in the Abrahamic Covenant for Gentiles who believe to become Abraham's seed and thus heirs with him and the Jewish believers.
Why would Paul raise the question, "Is the law sin?" Because the emphasis up to this point is on what the law cannot do. The law cannot justify (3:20). The law works wrath (4:15). The law tended to make sin abound (5:20). To be out from under the law was supposed to be a plus factor so far as righteous living was concerned (6:14 and 7:6). The law stirred the passions of sins in us into activity (7:5).
We need to keep reminding ourselves how important the law was to the Jewish people of that day, especially to the Pharisees. Law to them was supreme. Even a converted Jew would have difficulty understanding the removal of law from the center of the picture. It is not hard at all to see why a Jew would raise the question, and why he would need an answer.
Against the background of thought that God has uncondtionally promised eternal life to all Jews. Paul said, "But it is not as though the Word of God has failed" (9:6). If God had unconditionally promised eternal life to all Jews through the Abrahamic Covenant, His promise would ahve failed if large numbers of Jews, as Paul taught, were unsaved. On the hand, as John Piper explains, "If Paul can show that God's ultimate 'purpose according to election' never included the salvation of every individual Israelite, then the situation described in Rom. 9:1-5 would not so easily jeopardize God's relability."
Jewish thought assumed that if masses of Jews were unsaved, that would mean that God's promise had failed. That would mean that God would be unrighteous or unjust because He would be failing to live up to His promise of eternal life to all Jews, as it was given in the Abrahamic Cavenant.
With great concern, Paul attempted to show the Jews that God's promise had not failed. He revealed that God had never promised to save all Jews.
Paul's first step in trying to convince the Jews that God had not promised salvation to all Jews was to say, "For they are not all Israel who are descended from Isreal" (9:6). In this verse, Paul is saying that the name "Israel" has a broad and a narrow use. In the broad use it refers to all of those who have descended from Abraham through Jacob. These are the Covenant Seed of Abraham. It is true that the promises of the Abrahamic Covenant were made to all of those who descended form Abraham through Jacob. But the question is: Does this mean that all are saved?
Paul is saying we are not to understand that all who have descended from Abraham through Jacob are saved. Thsi suggests that there is a second use of the name "Israel". This use of the name "Israel" refers to those who descended from Abraham through Jacob who will actually be the beneficiaries of the promises of the Abrahamic Covenant. According to Paul, these are the ones who believe in Jesus Christ for salvation. These are "True Israel".
It takes more than a mere statement on Paul's part to convince the Jew. So what follows is designed to get the Jew to come to an understanding of the truth that God did not uncondtionally promise eternal life to all who descended from Abraham through Jacob.
In verse 7 Paul observes, "Neither are they all children because they are descendants, but: 'Through Isaac your descendants will be named.'" The Jews understood wee that though Ishmael and the descendants of Abraham through his children Keturah were Abraham's descendants, they wer not considered a part of the Covenant Seed of Abraham. They werwe also well aware that not even all of the descendants of Isaac were a part of this Covenant Seed. They understood that the descendants of Isaac through Jacob were the Covenant Seed of Abraham, while the descendants of Isaac through Esau were not the Covenant Seed of Abraham.
It is important to observe that 9:10-13 are in a context which has as its purpose to show that there is no reason to believe that all the Covenant Seed of Abraham (those who descended from Abraham through Jacob) are saved. This means that verses 10-12 are used by Paul to show that not all of the natural descendants of Abraham were saved. If this consideration of the context is not taken into account, the meaning of these verses will be missed.
Verses 10-13 are of particular importance because they point out that even though God had said, "Through Isaac your descendants will be named" (verse 7), not even all fo Isaac's descendants made up the Covenant Seed of Abraham.
Long story short Paul was building a case for the Jews who assumed unconditional salvation by pointing out the fact that their assumption was flawed. In a certain sense it is irony that I am using those same verses to disprove the same belief among Calvinist. :tongue3:
Peace and God Bless.
Last edited by a moderator:
