Drew
Member
Another thread I started on this got locked, so I will try again, assuming that as long as we behave ourselves, there is no reason why we cannot discuss who the mysterious vessels of destruction of Romans 9 are.
As some of you will already know, I believe that Paul sees hardened Jews as the vessels of destruction. Of course many, if not most, see the vessels of destruction as a category that includes Gentiles as well.
Before launching to my case - and constructive, competent critique - is invited, a number of manifestly false objections to my position need to be tabled and addressed.
A natural objection to the view that the “vessels of destruction†category in Romans 9 contains only Jews – the view to which I ascribe - is that Pharaoh is put forth as a Gentile who has been hardened. How, then, could the “vessels of destruction†category not include Gentiles? I will now demonstrate that, despite the admitted superficial appeal of concluding that Pharaoh falls into the “vessels of destruction†category, there is a way to legitimately read the text so that he does not.
Imagine that we unearth a letter written by a now deceased medical researcher who was known to have performed medical experiments on animals that resulted in their deaths. Imagine that the text of the letter is as follows:
1. I conducted medical experiments on chickens, resulting in the deaths of those chickens, and these experiments benefited humanity;
2. I conducted medical experiments on rats, resulting in the deaths of those rats, and these experiments benefited humanity;
3. I therefore had the right to conduct medical experiments on the vessels of destruction for the benefit of humanity.
Who are the vessels of destruction? Does this category includes chicken and rats? It seems that way, but appearances are deceiving. Suppose another source of information is unearthed, one that shows that the doctor was accused by other people for conducting medical experiments on dogs, and was highly motivated to respond to that “dog-specific†accusation.
This new item of information gives us an entirely legitimate alternative in respect to how we read the initial letter. The cryptic reference to “vessels of destruction†can now be read to denote dogs and dogs only, with the allusions to the killing of chickens and rats functioning specifically as examples, provided by the researcher in his own defence, of his general right to experiment on animals.
The point is that the second source gives us a context in which it is clear that the immediate concern of the researcher is to defend himself in respect to the killing of the dogs. So even though he has just written about killing chickens and rats, we are not forced to understand these animals as belonging to the “vessels of destruction†category.
Same thing with Pharaoh. Even though he is a hardened Gentile, there are other reasons to conclude that Paul’s specific goal is to defend the right of God to harden Jews. Therefore, Pharaoh need not be deemed to belong to the “vessels of destruction†category. And therefore the presence of the Pharaoh example does not force us to understand that the vessels of destruction category must contain Gentiles.
Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. Other considerations need to be brought to bear to answer this.
As some of you will already know, I believe that Paul sees hardened Jews as the vessels of destruction. Of course many, if not most, see the vessels of destruction as a category that includes Gentiles as well.
Before launching to my case - and constructive, competent critique - is invited, a number of manifestly false objections to my position need to be tabled and addressed.
A natural objection to the view that the “vessels of destruction†category in Romans 9 contains only Jews – the view to which I ascribe - is that Pharaoh is put forth as a Gentile who has been hardened. How, then, could the “vessels of destruction†category not include Gentiles? I will now demonstrate that, despite the admitted superficial appeal of concluding that Pharaoh falls into the “vessels of destruction†category, there is a way to legitimately read the text so that he does not.
Imagine that we unearth a letter written by a now deceased medical researcher who was known to have performed medical experiments on animals that resulted in their deaths. Imagine that the text of the letter is as follows:
1. I conducted medical experiments on chickens, resulting in the deaths of those chickens, and these experiments benefited humanity;
2. I conducted medical experiments on rats, resulting in the deaths of those rats, and these experiments benefited humanity;
3. I therefore had the right to conduct medical experiments on the vessels of destruction for the benefit of humanity.
Who are the vessels of destruction? Does this category includes chicken and rats? It seems that way, but appearances are deceiving. Suppose another source of information is unearthed, one that shows that the doctor was accused by other people for conducting medical experiments on dogs, and was highly motivated to respond to that “dog-specific†accusation.
This new item of information gives us an entirely legitimate alternative in respect to how we read the initial letter. The cryptic reference to “vessels of destruction†can now be read to denote dogs and dogs only, with the allusions to the killing of chickens and rats functioning specifically as examples, provided by the researcher in his own defence, of his general right to experiment on animals.
The point is that the second source gives us a context in which it is clear that the immediate concern of the researcher is to defend himself in respect to the killing of the dogs. So even though he has just written about killing chickens and rats, we are not forced to understand these animals as belonging to the “vessels of destruction†category.
Same thing with Pharaoh. Even though he is a hardened Gentile, there are other reasons to conclude that Paul’s specific goal is to defend the right of God to harden Jews. Therefore, Pharaoh need not be deemed to belong to the “vessels of destruction†category. And therefore the presence of the Pharaoh example does not force us to understand that the vessels of destruction category must contain Gentiles.
Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. Other considerations need to be brought to bear to answer this.