Freewill religion ! - Part 2

[Sparkey]

because I'm causing the poor moderators too much grief

Funny thought there, Async. I've not heard any moderator mention grief. But we wish you farewell brother. Be sure to stop back, even if it's just to say, "howdee".

Blessings to you!

Sparrow

P.S. "Storm Petrels are seabirds"

 

[Barbarian]

I will miss you, Async; through your posts, many interesting and important things in biology have been discussed in the Science forum, and all members have benefited thereby. Me included. Some particularly interesting research papers would have gotten by me, if not for your questions, which led me to take a deeper look at it.

God bless you; stop in now and then when you have time.

 

[About the Son of God]

I'm sorry, but I don't follow. My understanding of Romans 9:3 must be different than yours.

OK. I propose a word study to help you understand me.
Then you can explain whether/how Paul is sentenced to salvation.

AnathEma => ana - thEma,
ana is the Greek preposition meaning up, or again.
Take for example: ana-stasia = up-stand, or again-stand, and in English means "resurrection."

Thema is ... well.. a theme. no translation needed.
Just so, ana-thema is an 'upward' theme, or to theme-again. Eg: re-use for a different purpose, or a decoration hung up high, so it can be seen.

Many people presume that this means "curse", and the more lame lexicons only say "curse" -- but that is not the precise denotation of the word.
eg: There is a demonstrable difference between something being anathema, and what one typically DOES with the anathema.



For example, to show it can mean "devoted", and gasp -- "Holy" -- consider the LXX (The Greek translation of the old testament from <~300BC, which is quoted verbatim by the new testament in many places, even where modern Hebrew disagrees. ) :

Leviticus 27:28 ... Every devoted [anathema] thing is Holy unto the Lord.
Leviticus 27:28 παν δε αναθεμα ο εαν αναθη ανθρωπος τω κυριω απο παντων οσα αυτω εστιν απο ανθρωπου εως κτηνους και απο αγρου κατασχεσεως αυτου ουκ αποδωσεται ουδε λυτρωσεται παν αναθεμα αγιον αγιων εσται τω κυριω


Another example is the spoils of war, trophies taken from an enemy -- which is ambiguous, but I'll give a decisive example in a moment:

Deuteronomy 13:16 And thou shalt gather all the spoil [anathema] of it into the midst of the street thereof, and shalt burn with fire the city, and all the spoil[anathema] thereof every whit, for the LORD thy God: and it shall be an heap for ever; it shall not be built again.
Deuteronomy 13:16 αναιρων ανελεις παντας τους κατοικουντας εν τη πολει εκεινη εν φονω μαχαιρας αναθεματι αναθεματιειτε αυτην και παντα τα εν αυτη
Deuteronomy 13:17 And there shall cleave nought of the cursed thing to thine hand: that the LORD may turn from the fierceness of his anger, and shew thee mercy, and have compassion upon thee, and multiply thee, as he hath sworn unto thy fathers;

Notice, the "anathema" is to be gathered "for the Lord your God"; that is, it is to be ALL dedicated to him for his purposes, and not to be taken by individual Israelites. (shoplifting/5 fingered discount, cleave to the "Hand" eg: the sin listed in Romans 2:22 , as opposed to the Pharisee discussion in the ?Talmud? where they said an idol was unclean, but the gold/money hanging/offered to the idol could be taken by individuals... eg: do you "rob" temples? )





But the purpose of Anathema, eg: items taken in battle, after being purified by fire; were to be decorations [a theme] on God's temple so that the whole world knew that the God of Israel is stronger than any other "God". The theme inside the temple, was YHWH and his cult -- but the theme on the outside wall of the temple, was God's conquest of the world. (another theme... ana-thEma )

Luke 21:5 And as some spake of the temple, how it was adorned with goodly stones and gifts [anathEmasin], he said,
Luke 21:5 και τινων λεγοντων περι του ιερου οτι λιθοις καλοις και αναθημασιν κεκοσμηται ειπεν




Now,
To say something is "anathema", then, means that the objects did not come from the same religious system as the person's in whom's power they have fallen; The objects are a different religious theme. ( and it may mean they should be destroyed, depending on the aggressor's disposition, or whether the enemy offered them as a gift in restitution: 1Samuel 6:4 BUT -- an object of anathema can still be Holy to the Lord as a trophy/spoil of war. )

This re-use is still the case in the new testament; for Paul says the day of cataclysmic war is coming, called "the day of the LORD"; and it is precisely in the context of building a temple, where Paul laid the foundation, that Paul suddenly discusses the purification of valuable items -- and destruction of the common ones.

1Corinthians 3:12-13 "they will be saved, but as through fire."

Paul very clearly recalls the practice of cleansing by fire.
He is drawing on prescriptions in the Law, but also upon examples in the Prophets: Isaiah 6:5-7
(I'm making a narrow point, Isaiah's anathema status is not in scope, just that fire cleanses is all I'm showing.)

Consider another human example (Besides Isaiah):
Paul was struck down by God on the road to Damacus, while he was attempting to murder Christians; which is as warlike as you can get.
But, although Paul was taken in war -- he was not killed (yet). Rather God not only spared him, but cleaned him up (baptized, he's washable) and forced him to serve God as a slave until the day Paul was beheaded by Nero. (eg: Paul was circumcised at the neck, to become a Martyr --- Which, I suppose, frees him from being anathema in heaven? )

But, really -- Paul was held up by God as an example, for the world to see, a murderer... a theme of Gods power to subjugate.

When Paul says:
Roman 9:3 For I could wish that myself were accursed [anathema] from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh
Roman 9:3 ηυχομην γαρ αναθεμα ειναι αυτος εγω απο του χριστου υπερ των αδελφων μου των συγγενων μου κατα σαρκα
http://biblehub.com/interlinear/romans/9-3.htm

I am always surprised people take that seriously as meaning only "cursed".... It smacks of shallow study, and of not even checking a concordance to understand how the word is used; For, the statement is impossible for me to understand when I think about Luke 14:26, and try to grasp how others in this thread think that hate means "extreme dislike"; eg: Jacob hated Leah ( but obviously he loved her in bed??? )
( See the discussion in this thread about what Hate means biblically );

I hold that when Paul says "I could wish", he means something that it permissible, reasonable, and even encouraged by Jesus to do, and therefore he can be a disciple. eg: Because biblical 'hate' primarily means to love one less than another, and especially to withhold one's preference from them. The biblical meaning "hate" does trigger situations leading to wrath, but hate doesn't imply wrath by itself.
Whether wrath is involved in the 'hate' is found by inspection of the context, not by the word alone.

Luke 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

If Paul CAN (it is possible for him) wish to be cut off from Jesus, for the sake of his brethren, then his heart was just revealed.
He has a double heart. Such a person cannot be a disciple, if hate means only horrible dislike, and a will to damn or punish.


But: OTOH: If Paul's statement were rendered using a different connotation of anathema, or the denotation the entire problem goes away:
Romans 9:3 For I could wish that myself were a-dedicated-gift/raised-up-sign from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh.

When translated that way, I think Paul makes perfect and consistent sense.
As a lawyer, he just shifted the responsibility for hating his brothers over to Jesus. Paul's discipleship is impenetrable.

And, there's more to it:
To look upon the bronze serpent in the O.T. brought salvation from serpent bites, and looking upon Christ, Jesus, being "raised up" brought salvation from SIN. (The cross).

The sentence can also be translated with curse, if strictly used as a noun:
Romans 9:3 "for I could wish that I,myself, were a curse from Christ for my brethren" (and now he 'hates' them )
Paul is a curse from Christ, wished on Jesus' worst enemies.... Not cut off from Christ, but the very action of Christ -- the "prick" against whom the pharisees kick ; but that doesn't make as much sense of the context as the others do (IMHO).

The very purpose of the anathema (gifts hung up) on the outside of the temple was to bring people to FAITH that the God of Israel is mighty in battle, and he is to be served by the other nations. eg: Psalm 2:12 That's what I think Paul really WANTS to do.
Hence there is a limited sense in which Paul can BE/or is anathema, eg: in the sense of being a glorious and valuable capture from the enemy without being cut-off FROM Christ. Paul is a Pharisee of Pharisees, a student of the great Gamiliel, a lawyer of immense intelligence, who God struck down in war, and then whom God CAN (and later will) hold up as a taunt to his enemies, and an example to the world.


Consider what Paul was talking about in the sentences leading up to his supposed comment on being "cut" off:
Romans 8:29 to be conformed to the Image of his son [eg: an image of a man crucified, and "raised" up. ]
And again, which is also an O.T. quote with even more context:
Roman 8:36 As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.

And it is in this context, that he says "I wish that I could be an-anathema/a-dedicated-gift/a-raised-up-sign/a-martyr from Christ for my brethren.
eg: Not, cut off FROM christ [verb] -- as in Damned, and accursed in that way, but rather Paul wishes to be the thing [noun, nominative singluar] sanctified/crucified, or executed, conformed TO Christ's image in order to bring salvation to his brothers.


So, explain:
Paul, was clearly captured in the very act of warfare, and scripture even says that Paul fell.
So, he was in effect, sentenced to salvation ; but that doesn't mean everyone is saved exactly the same way as Paul.

How, then, do you understand of Romans 9:3 ? What conclusion do you come to ?

 

[About the Son of God]

If it came down to a perfect understanding, I suppose no one would be saved. Fortunately it doesn't. God knows.

Amen.

 

[About the Son of God]

Is Emmaus anywhere near Damascus?

No, that was a typo. Thanks.

 

[mondar]

About the SoG:
How would you read Galatians 1:8-9? Would it be good thing to preach a different Gospel than Paul?

 

[About the Son of God]

I caaaaant reeeeessssssssiiiiiissssstttttttt......

You know proverbs. What about 1:17?

Except the now extinct dodo.

 

[About the Son of God]

About the SoG: How would you read Galatians 1:8-9? Would it be good thing to preach a different Gospel than Paul?

If they preach a different Gospel than Paul, and therefore Peter, and James, and John, and ... then they are a different religion -- are they not?
They are ana-thema -- in the sense of another theme. A variation, which is often called "heresy" by Christians of the early centuries.
They have, essentially, changed the theme of Christianity.

As for myself, I have said absolutely nothing about an anathema automatically being "good".
So the over simplified answer is "no".

Anathema can be purified AKA Holy to God, and made useful ; but that's not to say it was automatically good from the source it came.
In fact, it's generally always bad at the beginning, and only Good in the end, should God find a use for it in building his temple.

hmmm....
I think there is an example of people preaching baptism, but not knowing of the Holy Spirit?
It's a grey area, for I don't think they changed the christian theme; but the Christian theme developed while they weren't watching -- but none the less they lived a gospel temporarily devoid of the Holy Spirit -- so what do you think, were they to be CURSED? were they anathema in that sense??
Acts 19:1-2
Or just another theme (variation), which needed guidance with gentleness ?

 

[About the Son of God]

Well, Asyncritus....
I'll leave a post here, just in case you ever want to pick up the pieces and try again...

1 The firstborn would receive a double portion of the father's goods when he died 2 If it was a royal family, as today, the firstborn would become the king at the appointed time. 3 The most important for this discussion of Jacob's motives, is the fact that the firstborn had the right to be the priest of the family, and to lead their worship. Hence: Nu 3:45 Take the Levites instead of all the firstborn among the children of Israel, and the cattle of the Levites instead of their cattle; and the Levites shall be mine: I am the LORD. So up to this point in time, the firstborn sons were performing the Levitical roles: everything to do with the family's worship. By rights, Esau had this privilege, because he had been born first. But did he do so? We have several hints that he didn't.

points 1) and 2) are items that can be coveted. They are part of what I called usery/theft -- although, theft is probably inaccurate/exaggerated as a word.
3) Is the point you made that I had to study. I agree, the firstborn acted as priests up and until God selected the tribe of Levi sub Aaron, at the Golden Calf incident.

Jacob wanted the priesthood, and wanted it badly, and he waited his chance to buy it from Esau.

I don't see that 'purchasing' is plausible, for that makes Jacob damnable for trying to purchase the gift of God for money. To be able to do that means that God's promise is subject to purchase by man's works; and man would have every reason to brag that he made the business deal of all time; salvation for a bowl of pottage. God owed "me" a debt of salvation for a bowl of pottage.... hahahahahah...!

That's different, than say, Mary and Joseph being REQUIRED to offer two turtledoves to ransom their son, Jesus, back from the temple as their firstborn; for the debt is theirs by God's command not vice versa. They would have no reason to boast that God owed them salvation, although they can say "give me back what you promised.", and I'll observe that works were required to keep the gift they were already given.

But, back to the O.T.: Jacob had no such law requiring him to buy God's promise for money as he is supposed to have tried to do, according to you. IT's not right to do wrong so that good may come of it. God will make the Good happen when man doesn't have the ability to do it himself.

So, I'm still really only able to make sense of the event as some kind of property transfer, (points 1 and 2), because Jacob needs to be exonerated eg: In my mind the sale had to be some kind of equivalent exchange.

In our U.S. laws, there are things such as usury (the company store enslavement of blacks by monetary debt), entrapment (baiting or enticing someone into doing something wrong), and so forth; and those laws are based on abuses very much like we see in these scriptures; laws that can be found in the human heart -- even when the law is not written.

For Jacob to offer a bowl of bean mash, in exchange for a double portion of wealth -- in a rich father's house -- is along the lines of usury.
I'll grant that I don't understand exactly why Esau did as he did -- but I understand Jacob even less.
Perhaps I'll discover more of the reason in time.

'Covet earnestly the best gifts' says Paul, and Jacob did

Hmmm? Where does it say that -- I can't quite locate it; although, I think I read something similar...
I wonder if that's a translation issue...

16 Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright.

I already devoted a whole post to the problem with this, for meat is not pottage. etc. But, as you are ducked out of the thread after I asked it, I don't have much hope of an answer, now.

Ge 27:15 And Rebekah took goodly raiment (= the priestly raiment) of her eldest son Esau, which were with her in the house, and put them upon Jacob her younger son: SHE had them. Now we know that there wasn't much love lost between Rebekah and Esau: so for the priestly garments to be WITH HER, tells us that Esau didn't wear them at all. If Esau wasn't there to perform his priestly duties, then who did them? Jacob, of course. And this had gone on for many years - it was no new thing. Esau, says Hebrews 12, was a PROFANE person. What does that mean? Leviticus 21 tells us:

This is the one that really stumped me for a while.
But notice what happens when Isaac SMELLS the garments that Jacob wore:
Genesis 27:27 And he came near, and kissed him: and he smelled the smell of his raiment, and blessed him, and said, See, the smell of my son is as the smell of a field which the LORD hath blessed:

That raiment must have been used outdoors rather often, don't you think, in order to STILL have a smell of the field stained into it.
Jacob, recall, fetched the goats for his mother to butcher/prepare -- and THEN after doing all that, she dressed Jacob in the change of clothes so that the clothes won't smell like the goat -- and since domestic goats are a very distinct smell it's more than a little curious that Isaac notices the smell of the field on the raiment, and not the animal...

I think the field, therefore, must have smelled strong, too -- eg: brush, aromatic plants, etc....
Strong smells are found in the brush when hunting -- and are not things that I notice when walking in a grassy or wheaten field which has little odor.

I see the smell as more likely to favor Esau having used them, rather than having Jacob use them ; or equally likely if goats=field...
Or else, why don't we hear Issac saying something like: Esau -- why does your raiment smell like the goats in the pen? or smell like the house and the firepit? Didn't I ask you to hunt WILD game?


Next issue: Who do you think made that goodly raiment?
Esau isn't the mother's favorite, and Jacob didn't hunt, and it's a full 74 year old man's size, right? :o
So, It's not reasonable for Rebekah to have made it over-sized for a child AND also have it to be used "in the field";
eg: with hunter gatherer smells on it. Therefore: Someone had to have been using it, and the smell's strength suggests hunting.

Now, priests, eg:Cohen, are generally meat handlers. Butchers and the like, and hunting is within their profession....
Butchering can be done with domestic animals or with hunted ones. But Isaac preferred hunting.
A good camoflage raiment, used by a hunter -- would be exactly what his Father would have liked -- and would have smelled of the field.

A little bit of research of ancient Jewish commentary, seems to tie that coat to Nimrod, as its' original owner; raiment that was handed down.
Genesis 10:9 He was a mighty hunter before the LORD: wherefore it is said, Even as Nimrod the mighty hunter before the LORD.

Exactly the kind of priestly vestment a hunter-priest would inherit after he took over the priestly duties from the Father.
Recall, it's the father who acted as Priest until he died.
For notice Isaac is blessing Esau, not Esau blessing himself, or Esau blessing Isaac, or Jacob blessing EITHER of them.
The priest is clearly STILL Isaac until he dies or hands it on officially: (Genesis 27:2)

Therefore, either there is more than one priest; or I have no reason to believe Esau had inherited the coat.
If the coat still belonged to Isaac (who liked to hunt), then it is quite natural that Rebekah would keep it for Isaac, and Issac may have well allowed Esau to use it if Esau was also a priest; But it's only natural that Rebekah would keep it, and when Isaac called for it -- would be expected dress Esau in his father's raiment.

So, how shall I put this as a summary;
Rebekah mimicked the work of a butcher-hunter and priest named Esau, by a Jacobian dressing of the kid ?? (got yer goat. )

I sometimes wonder if maybe Jacob was really the elder boy -- as in they are fraternal twins -- since age is not a free hand-out.
But: The nations may well be reversed in age, being as Israel got a late start by 400+ years in Egypt.
Only God really saw what happened INSIDE the womb at that time. unno

 

[About the Son of God]

Hello ABSG (About the Son of God). I think I dropped a conversation with you somewhere else. I have a few thoughts about Romans 9. I did not go back and read much in the thread, but its a long thread. I hope you do not mind me jumping in here.

I don't mind speaking with anyone on scripture; although, if I may point you to relevant back posts as they become relevant -- I would rather do that than have a conversation based on a subject I wasn't discussing.

First, I would be happy to concede that the prophecy of Malachi 1:2-3 is about the nations. However, that is not the question. The question is the context and nature of Romans 9. Romans 9 is not about the prophecies concerning the nations. I is about the nature of Israel

My entire discussion to this point is whether or not the Man Esau is damned. eg: is he is provably a vessel of Wrath; Pharaoh has not been discussed yet.
If an individual can not be shown to be predestined to damnation without their free will involved, then the Calvinist position rests on statistical groups.

Predestining "some" in Israel, says little to nothing about predestining individuals ; for that's a bulk statistic subject to choice, vs. an individual control not subject to choice.

Hence, I am focusing first on Esau -- and defending the position that he was blessed rather than damned, and seeing what scriptures can be brought to bear on the question.
The fact that you admit Malachi is about the nations, automatically excludes it from proving Esau, the man, to be damned.

Romans 9 is not about the prophecies concerning the nations. I is about the nature of Israel. Paul is defining the term Israel in two ways in Romans 9:6. The first time he mentions the term "Israel" he is speaking of a group within genetic Israel in which they are all saved. Not one of them in that group will be lost.

I don't think it anywhere that simple; for is Pharaoh part of "genetic" Israel? or "Esau"? in your thinking?

Deute 23:7 Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite; for he is thy brother: thou shalt not abhor an Egyptian; because thou wast a stranger in his land.
Deute 23:8 The children that are begotten of them shall enter into the congregation of the LORD in their third generation.

Curious that the law would mention these two, and then they should show up in Romans 9:15, and 9:17.

Ruth the moabitess (strictly banned even in the Law), but even when she had no children, was made part of Israel by the mere fact that she married an Israelite man -- and the two became one "flesh".
The children didn't make her an Israelite, but her marriage did.

It happens that She then marries Boaz, a man who is descended from Rahab the Harlot. (Not an Israelite at all).
Just so, there is nothing which made it mandatory for Ruth to marry a man; she could have kept and worked the property; or she could have married an Egyptian who converted to Israel; and they too, could marry converts from these other countries...

There are going to non genetically related people in Israel, from outside of Israel.
So, I don't see how your comment is assuredly what Paul meant.

It's also strange that so many non-israelites are involved in Jesus' birth line. Ruth being David's grand-mama.
Besides which, Joseph never even had sexual relations with Mary to bring about Jesus; so I wonder why Joseph's line is so important to trace back in terms of "genetics." ?

But, isn't it obvious that some of Israel is not of Israel, when all we have to have happen is that Egyptian slaves from the Exodus marry Edomites ?

Perhaps you could try again to lay a clearer foundation of your argument?
The point may not be important to your argument, but I am not going to try and verify the rest until we walk through each step one at a time.

 

[mondar]

About the SoG: How would you read Galatians 1:8-9? Would it be good thing to preach a different Gospel than Paul?

If they preach a different Gospel than Paul, and therefore Peter, and James, and John, and ... then they are a different religion -- are they not?
They are ana-thema -- in the sense of another theme. A variation, which is often called "heresy" by Christians of the early centuries.
They have, essentially, changed the theme of Christianity.

As for myself, I have said absolutely nothing about an anathema automatically being "good".
So the over simplified answer is "no".

Anathema can be purified AKA Holy to God, and made useful ; but that's not to say it was automatically good from the source it came.
In fact, it's generally always bad at the beginning, and only Good in the end, should God find a use for it in building his temple.

hmmm....
I think there is an example of people preaching baptism, but not knowing of the Holy Spirit?
It's a grey area, for I don't think they changed the christian theme; but the Christian theme developed while they weren't watching -- but none the less they lived a gospel temporarily devoid of the Holy Spirit -- so what do you think, were they to be CURSED? were they anathema in that sense??
Acts 19:1-2
Or just another theme (variation), which needed guidance with gentleness ?

I am glad you accept the concept of "CURSED" to be within the semantic range of the word anethema. The reasons I would have for questioning your reading of Romans 9:3 would be simply grammatical. Paul uses two prepositions within the passage.
Rom 9:3 ηυχομην γαρ αναθεμα ειναι αυτος εγω απο του χριστου
I am focusing on the preposition "απο" του χριστου. That preposition fits better with the separation concept of anethema.

Also, the next preposition is υπερ.
υπερ των αδελφων μου των συγγενων μου κατα σαρκα
The preposition υπερ is a common preposition in soteriological contexts. So then, Paul is saying the Jews are separated from Christ at that time. He prays or wishes that he could be a substitute in their separation instead of the nation of Israel.

This is a short note I know, but I do not see how the prepositions of the verse could possibly fit with the reading on Romans you gave. I am guessing that when translators came to this verse, the reason the rendered in "separated" or "accursed" is because of the prepositions. Your reading would be very awkward with those prepositions.

 

[mondar]

About SoG:

Perhaps you could try again to lay a clearer foundation of your argument?

Yes, I think the passage is talking about Esau as an individual. Certainly he was not a part of Israel, but he was of the seed of Isaac. Being that both Jacob and Esau were children of Isaac, who was of the promised seed, it is a fitting illustration of 9:6 and how God elects individuals within the genetic seed.

Also, the context validates me looking at Esau as an individual. Verse 11 speaks of Jacob and Esau not as nations, but as individuals. It also speaks of their election. So then, the context is speaking about the election of individuals within the genetic group of Israel. At least the context does this until verse 13. Then in verse 14 there is a slight context shift to answer hypothetical objections. Verse 6 is a topic sentence, and is illustrated by two illustrations. Verse 7-8 mentioned the first illustration of Isaac and Ishmael. Ishmael is not named by name, but he is not selected as the promised seed, or the elect seed, yet he is one of Abraham's children. Ishmael and Isaac illustrate the principle in verse 6. The 2nd illustration is Jacob and Esua. Of course Esau was not an Israelite, but that is the whole point of verse 6. Esau was a son of Isaac, and yet God did not choose him based upon linage. God chose someone within the linage, but God did not choose the whole linage. That is the point of Romans 9:6.

Also, this principle of God choosing individuals and the fact that they are not a part of Israel, comes up in verse 24. God chooses freely as he desires. He gives mercy to those within the nation of Israel as he desires, and he also gives his mercy to those whom he chooses among the gentiles as he pleases. Verse 24 also demands that we see the context as soteriological concerning individuals.

 

[JLB]

About SoG:

Perhaps you could try again to lay a clearer foundation of your argument?

Yes, I think the passage is talking about Esau as an individual. Certainly he was not a part of Israel, but he was of the seed of Isaac. Being that both Jacob and Esau were children of Isaac, who was of the promised seed, it is a fitting illustration of 9:6 and how God elects individuals within the genetic seed.

Also, the context validates me looking at Esau as an individual. Verse 11 speaks of Jacob and Esau not as nations, but as individuals. It also speaks of their election. So then, the context is speaking about the election of individuals within the genetic group of Israel. At least the context does this until verse 13. Then in verse 14 there is a slight context shift to answer hypothetical objections. Verse 6 is a topic sentence, and is illustrated by two illustrations. Verse 7-8 mentioned the first illustration of Isaac and Ishmael. Ishmael is not named by name, but he is not selected as the promised seed, or the elect seed, yet he is one of Abraham's children. Ishmael and Isaac illustrate the principle in verse 6. The 2nd illustration is Jacob and Esua. Of course Esau was not an Israelite, but that is the whole point of verse 6. Esau was a son of Isaac, and yet God did not choose him based upon linage. God chose someone within the linage, but God did not choose the whole linage. That is the point of Romans 9:6.

Also, this principle of God choosing individuals and the fact that they are not a part of Israel, comes up in verse 24. God chooses freely as he desires. He gives mercy to those within the nation of Israel as he desires, and he also gives his mercy to those whom he chooses among the gentiles as he pleases. Verse 24 also demands that we see the context as soteriological concerning individuals.

Based on your study, do you believe Jacob the son of Isaac was elected, as well as the children of Israel?


JLB

 

[mondar]

Based on your study, do you believe Jacob the son of Isaac was elected, as well as the children of Israel?
JLB

I will give you a statement, but this is not a defense. A defense would take a lot more space and time.

Yes, Jacob was elected. I see no other way to read verses 10 and 11.

When you ask about the election of "the children of Israel" that requires a more complex answer. That question is answered in Romans 9:6.
6 But it is not as though the word of God hath come to nought. For they are not all Israel, that are of Israel:
When the text says "For they are not all Israel" it is speaking of elect genetic individuals within the nation of Israel. Elsewhere this is called the "Remnant." Only a remnant shall be saved.
Then the text says "that are of Israel." Yes, that phrase is speaking of all the genetic nation of Israel, but it is not saying that each andUn every person in Israel was elect.

The verse has some complexity because within verse 6 the term "Israel" has two different meanings. The first use speaks of the "remnant" that other passages speak of, in this use, the term Israel speaks of elect individuals within the genetic nation. This first use speaks of believers only. The 2nd use of the term "Israel" speaks of the entire genetic nation, believers and unbelievers alike.

If I can say something personal and off topic.... I really do not want to pursue a discussion in this area on this forum.... but.... the exciting thing to me about the theology of Romans 9:6 is that it contrasts the Old Covenant of Abraham with the New Covenant. Under the Abrahamic Covenant, each and every Israelite was to be circumcised. OT circumcision was not about believer and unbeliever. Circumcision was the sign and seal of the Old Covenant. Under the New Covenant, it says in Jeremiah 31 that "they shall all know me." "From the greatest of them to the least of them." This Covenant relates to the 2nd Israel. Of course this is an argument that is frequently used to support believers baptism. The sign and seal of the New Covenant is then baptism. If the New Covenant is for believers only, then it is proper only to baptize believers.

Another implication of Romans 9:6 is that there is covenant discontinuity between the Older Abrahamic Covenant and the New Covenant. There is also continuity. The book of Galatians demonstrates a lot of Covenant continuity. Yet within that continuity is some discontinuity. One of the great biblical challenges is to nail down the exact amount of continuity and discontinuity. It is not an easy task.

 

[JLB]

Based on your study, do you believe Jacob the son of Isaac was elected, as well as the children of Israel?
JLB

I will give you a statement, but this is not a defense. A defense would take a lot more space and time.

Yes, Jacob was elected. I see no other way to read verses 10 and 11.

When you ask about the election of "the children of Israel" that requires a more complex answer. That question is answered in Romans 9:6.
6 But it is not as though the word of God hath come to nought. For they are not all Israel, that are of Israel:
When the text says "For they are not all Israel" it is speaking of elect genetic individuals within the nation of Israel. Elsewhere this is called the "Remnant." Only a remnant shall be saved.
Then the text says "that are of Israel." Yes, that phrase is speaking of all the genetic nation of Israel, but it is not saying that each andUn every person in Israel was elect.

The verse has some complexity because within verse 6 the term "Israel" has two different meanings. The first use speaks of the "remnant" that other passages speak of, in this use, the term Israel speaks of elect individuals within the genetic nation. This first use speaks of believers only. The 2nd use of the term "Israel" speaks of the entire genetic nation, believers and unbelievers alike.

If I can say something personal and off topic.... I really do not want to pursue a discussion in this area on this forum.... but.... the exciting thing to me about the theology of Romans 9:6 is that it contrasts the Old Covenant of Abraham with the New Covenant. Under the Abrahamic Covenant, each and every Israelite was to be circumcised. OT circumcision was not about believer and unbeliever. Circumcision was the sign and seal of the Old Covenant. Under the New Covenant, it says in Jeremiah 31 that "they shall all know me." "From the greatest of them to the least of them." This Covenant relates to the 2nd Israel. Of course this is an argument that is frequently used to support believers baptism. The sign and seal of the New Covenant is then baptism. If the New Covenant is for believers only, then it is proper only to baptize believers.

Another implication of Romans 9:6 is that there is covenant discontinuity between the Older Abrahamic Covenant and the New Covenant. There is also continuity. The book of Galatians demonstrates a lot of Covenant continuity. Yet within that continuity is some discontinuity. One of the great biblical challenges is to nail down the exact amount of continuity and discontinuity. It is not an easy task.

Do you believe the Abrahamic Covenant is a different covenant from the New Covenant, or do you believe the New Covenant is the same Covenant, with fresh benefits.


JLB

 

[mondar]

Do you believe the Abrahamic Covenant is a different covenant from the New Covenant, or do you believe the New Covenant is the same Covenant, with fresh benefits.
JLB

JBL, this is off topic, but I will answer you question. Probably a new thread should be started. On the other hand, I guess there are distant issues that disconnect us from the concept of "Freewill religion."

Certainly the two Covenants are related. I would not go so far as to say the are the "same" as in identical. That would be to flatten the two covenants. I would pick a passage like Galatians 3:8 to demonstrate that there is a relationship to the believer today and to the Abrahamic Covenant.
8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all the nations be blessed.
Of course Paul is alluding to Genesis 12. The language is shockingly strong. He says that God "preached the gospel beforehand." So then, one thing to observe is that Gentiles are related to the Gospel in the Abrahamic Covenant. The Abrahamic Covenant has stipulations that might relate to the Jews, but in Genesis 12 there are stipulations that are directed at the Gentiles. There is much more in Galatians that relates the Gentile to the Abrahamic Covenant. We are sons of Abraham by faith. So then, I do not think that the Covenants are to be distinguished from each other totally. The New Covenant is a covenant of salvation also. At the end of Jeremiah 31:4 we read...
"for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin will I remember no more."

On the other hand, there are stipulations in the New Covenant that are completely absent from the previous Abrahamic Covenant. When Jeremiah says in 31:33...
"I will put my law in their inward parts, and in their heart will I write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people" this speaks of regeneration. God is promising to give the new heart. Of course Ezekiel uses similar language in Ezek 11:19 "And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them a heart of flesh" and 36:26 "A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you; and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh." Jeremiah is of course quoted by Paul in Hebrews 8. The ministry of the New Covenant is referred to in 2 Cor and the New Covenant is celebrated in communion "This cup is the New Covenant in my blood."

This is the born again of John 3, and 1 John 2:29, 5:1, etc.
God regenerates those whom he chooses. Of course that is the elect. This election is not on the basis of anything we did, believed, or that we are (Romans 9:11). At a time of God's choosing, he draws the elect through regeneration (John 6:44) to believe unto justification. This is commonly called the effectual calling.

I am saying that the application of the New Covenant is all about the new heart. The result of the new heart is that men are no longer by nature children of wrath (Ephesians 2:3). They are no longer dead in their sins and trespasses (Ephesians 2:1). The human response to this change of nature in the New Covenant is that we come running to Christ. He is all we want. Where as we once rejected him, the new birth (or new covenant stipulations) produces faith (1 John 5:1) in the elect individual.

So then, there are new benefits to the New Covenant that were not in the Abrahamic Covenant, but this does not mean that there is no connection or continuity at all.

Gotta go for now. Be back later sometime.

 

[Deborah13]

Do you believe the Abrahamic Covenant is a different covenant from the New Covenant, or do you believe the New Covenant is the same Covenant, with fresh benefits.

Hey JLB, this is interesting in that God made the Abrahamic Covenant with Abraham and his Seed. The New Covenant is made with that same Seed. We are partakers of the covenant if we are in that Seed.
Galatians 3:16
and to Abraham were the promises spoken, and to his seed; He doth not say, `And to seeds,' as of many, but as of one, `And to thy seed,' which is Christ;

 

[Sinthesis]

I'm sorry, but I don't follow. My understanding of Romans 9:3 must be different than yours.

And it is in this context, that he says "I wish that I could be an-anathema/a-dedicated-gift/a-raised-up-sign/a-martyr from Christ for my brethren.
eg: Not, cut off FROM christ [verb] -- as in Damned, and accursed in that way, but rather Paul wishes to be the thing [noun, nominative singluar] sanctified/crucified, or executed, conformed TO Christ's image in order to bring salvation to his brothers.


So, explain:
Paul, was clearly captured in the very act of warfare, and scripture even says that Paul fell.
So, he was in effect, sentenced to salvation ; but that doesn't mean everyone is saved exactly the same way as Paul.

How, then, do you understand of Romans 9:3 ? What conclusion do you come to ?

Thanks for your expertise. I always learn from your posts even if I don't ultimately share your conclusions.

Rom 9:1 ¶ I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost,
Rom 9:2 - That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart.
Rom 9:3 - For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:​

I read the above in the sense that:
Paul, who I agree had been taken as spoil from the Pharisees (Israel of works, not spirit) and re-purposed by Jesus, laments for the future of those only of flesh Israel, and in his love for them (a charitable love consistent with and from the Holy Spirit), Paul could (but 'does' not) wish that there was another gospel he could give to flesh Israel, even though preaching it would separate (re-re-purpose) him from Christ. Yet of course, there is none, which he goes on to explain throughout the rest of the chapter.

I suppose the difference in our views hinges on if the apo G575 "from Christ" means 'separate apart from Christ' or 'origin coming from Christ'. My choice is based on the fact that Paul would not have to wish to be anathema coming from Christ because that is what he already was. However, in love for others he could wish to be anathema separate from Christ if only that could save others, but it can not, thus he mourns those who won't be saved.

Saul/Paul could have rejected salvation, in which case his physical life would have been ended on the road to Damascus. Instead Saul/Paul submitted to Christ by giving up the spirit that had driven him, and gave the reigns of his remaining physical life to Jesus to be re-purposed (re-born) as anathema from works Israel to the spiritual Israel of Christianity.

 

[About the Son of God]

I am glad you accept the concept of "CURSED" to be within the semantic range of the word anathema.

If you ACTUALLY read my original post, it says, "a curse" BUT not to-be "cursed"
~6th paragraph from the bottom: http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=52286&p=851609&viewfull=1#post851609

And so why do you now misrepresent a separate question TO YOU as me accepting "cursed" ?!

so what do you think, were they to be CURSED? were they anathema in that sense??

It helps to read my posts twice... first to get the gist, second for details.
My work isn't casual reading....

The reasons I would have for questioning your reading of Romans 9:3 would be simply grammatical. Paul uses two prepositions within the passage.... I am focusing on the preposition "απο".

OK: That's plausible, I might have made a mistake....
So, I need to actually demonstrate the grammar. Right ?!
This will, therefore be long. I'll note abridgments.

But if the basis is simply grammatical, as you say, then we need to set aside Roman's context, and concentrate on actual grammar, O.K.?
You may add refinements based on context once we know what the grammar actually can support.

First, I want to get a rough idea of what other Greek scholars think the words of Romans 9:3 mean lexically/dictionarily.

http://biblehub.com/interlinear/romans/9-3.htm

Then, I'm going to diagram the sentence for word endings AKA declensions.

1)ηυχο-μην 2)γαρ 3)αναθεμ-α 4)ειναι 5)αυτ-ος 6)εγω 7)απο 8)τ-ου 9)χριστ-ου
10) υπερ 11) τ-ων 12) αδελφ-ων 13) μου 14) των 15) συγ-γεν-ων 16) μου 17) κατα 18) σαρκ-α

Next: A Berean philosophy: I don't trust lexicons, or grammars, but verify them.

When verifying word #1, I discover a conflict; so I do an exhaustive KJV Bible word study.
I found the word has a different implication than I originally thought.
The study is in this post, look for the label: ----- word study:

When verifying word #5, I immediately realize it's very abridged eg:aut-os is also well known to usually mean "he" (subject).
That definition is found in every grammar book I've seen, so the omission and doctrinal effect is suspicious.

αυτ-ον he/him [Accusative AKA a predicate word]
αυτ-ος he [nominative AKA a subject word]
αυτ-ου of him AKA his [genetive AKA a word of belonging]
αυτ-ω / ῳ to him [dative AKA a place or a motion/direction]

So, after using a concordance to verify the *rest* of the word meanings
This is what I come up with:

1) I-used-to-pray,myself/selfishly 2) for [postpositive] 3) an anathema [Noun, not verb] 4) to-be 5) he [Nominative=subject word]
6) I 7) from 8) the[g] 9) ointment/anointing/Chrism/Christ[g]
10) over 11) of-the/se[g] 12) brothers[...] 13)of-me 14) of-the 15) kinsmen [together-generation] 16) of-me 17) under [according-to] 18) flesh [acc].

Now: Lexicon for words #1,#10 is where I found the linked lexicon to be flat wrong, and I can demonstrate it.
Lexicon words #3,#5 may be correct, but imprecise or pragmatically wrong statistically.
eg: auto-os is primarily 'he'; it might be "myself", but I'd like to examine other examples first.

----------------
Technical grammar details:

Word #17 "under" is kata=κατα, Kata also has the connotations "according-to" AKA "compared-against"
Kata is whence comes the word "Cata-gory".

See #7 (apo) and #10 (`uper=hyper=υπερ) in [MENTION=13142]Sparrowhawke[/MENTION] 's chart: http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=52286&p=850080&viewfull=1#post850080

There are more precise charts than Sparrowhawke's, and they explain the prepositional semantics;
Such a chart would reduce sloppy translation; for I know a clause's words'-declensions (endings) will determine the connotation:
eg: the precise meaning of the preposition is determined by which kind of words the clause uses, eg: genitive[g], dative[d], or accusative[acc]

Genitive words roughly mean "belonging to"; so I reason [perhaps wrongly?] that genitive "apo" clauses mean "from" someone/or something as a source; not a location departed from.
But, dative, indicating physical location/direction, would reasonably mean "away from"
As to accusative clauses
But 'apo' in Romans 9:3 is not an accusative clause anyhow.

To interpret Greek sentences properly, and translate it, there are a few important things to note;
In the Greek there are no periods, or commas, (and in the original, not even spaces.)
Nor does word *order* dictate subject and predicate parts of a sentence; but the endings of the words, and prepositions, do all the work.
To discover where one sentence ends, and another starts -- we look for words that have the "subject" word endings AKA Nominative.
and each of those must be the subject of a unique verb, or be an adjective to another subject word next to it.
Buuuut: A subject word (AKA Nominative or Predicate) in Greek can and often is placed after the verb that it is a subject for.
That's where most translators of Greek make serious mistakes. Habits from English are bad Greek.

---------------------
Discussion of some of your ideas:


Preposition variation is where I think you dispute Sparrowhawke's chart, so perhaps you would kindly produce a link to a better one?
I'm a Berean in philosophy; So, at least check or chuck it; Predestination by random charts.

Next: When considering your preferred translation, I noticed a lexicon says 3) Anathema-> N-NNS: eg: Noun,Nominative-Neuter-Singular"
That means it is a subject word...(...often!) so, it's not necessarily a predicate eg: your choice of translation...

Last observation:
When you accept the translation (paraphrased)"I-could-wish to-be accursed", you implicitly choose to assert one of two things,
Either "Curse" is a verb, helped by the adverb "to-be" or else, "Cursed" is a predicate following the verb, "to-be".
The former idea IS definitely wrong. There is no way anathem-a is a verb. It is a noun.
Grammatically, translation as "to-be-cursed"-- is blatant, [&wrong], interpretive paraphrased translation.

------------------------
My first translation:
A demonstration needing improvement:

The first thing I see is that one verb (word#1), is missing a[ny] Noun that it could agree with.
The subject ought to be 'I' or a QUALIFIED, version of 'I'.
eg: "I, Caesar," "I, a man,", "I, myself, with God.", "I, myself, from the church", etc.

Next: Since each subject needs a verb, I see word #7, *is* a personal pronoun ("I"), and a subject, but there is no verb attached to it.
But it is followed by a PREPOSITIONAL phrase. Therefore, the PP phrase ought to describe "I" as an appositive.
So, The first thing I am going to do -- following Grammar rules, is to move the PP phrase to the start of the sentence; eg: proper English subject-verb-predicate word order.

The subject "I" gets a verb, and the dangling verb gets a proper, and qualified subject based on "I".

Next: I simply place the rest of the words in proper subject verb predicate order via. their endings; and see if the hyper-literal translation is logical.

-->because I, from the anointed over the brother's of mine, the kinsmen of mine according to-flesh, used-to-selfishly-pray he be anathema".
-->because I, from the Christ over my brothers, my kinsmen according-to flesh, used-to-selfishly-pray he be anathema.

So, I Verify: does Paul come from the anointed[g]?
Clearly Yes -- he is an apo-stle of Christ; one who is "apo" from Christ.
So, the sentence should still make sense if that idea is susbstituted...

-->because I, (an apostle of Christ (over my brothers, my kinsmen according-to flesh)) used-to-selfishly-pray he [Christ] be anathema.
It DOES!

So, I Verify: Is Christ the anointed over the tribe of Benjamin? and/or all Israel as a nation?

What means "anointed over ones brothers"?
It means to be their king (1King 19:16,Acts 4:27),OR prophet(Luke 4:18,), OR priest(TBD) or even to-be-healed. (Mark 6:13)
Also note: Christ-ians, in general are all anointed: ( 2Corinthians 1:21 ).

Paul's statement is therefore true in >= one way(s):
He is either sent from the Christ, Jesus, OR he is sent from *the* church [christ-ians] OR the one who anoints, eg:the Holy Spirit.
Acts 15:22, Acts 17:10, Acts 15:25, Isaiah 61:1, Luke 4:18

I think "the" Christ most strongly suggests Jesus, but the church is Jesus' body, and the Holy Spirit is his anointing.

Now, the statement "I,myself,used-to-pray" or "selfishly-pray" I discovered is in the "imperfect tense" and "middle voice".
Whatever Paul means by the word, even if you insist on "wish"; It has the following properties.
Paul did it in the past BUT no longer does it. ( It was an imperfect wish, hey? ) Acts 8:3, Acts 9:1, Acts 9:5,

eg: Acts 9:5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecute: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. [eg: Saul/Paul persecuted Jesus, by persecuting the leaders (annointeds) of the Church. Not Jesus, directly. ]

And the middle voice means the prayer was a prayer/wish of importance to Paul himself / or possibly self-ish.

...and the linked lexicon also agrees to the imperfect and middle voice...
In fact, the lexicon's part of speech (grammar) notes are excellent.
eg: those notes like N-NNS (Noun Nominative Neuter Singular) or V-...(verb-....) found under the words definitions.

--------------------------------
A paraphrased translation based on a literal one.

-->becauase I, from the Christ over my brothers, my kinsmen according-to flesh, used-to-pray, myself "he be anathema!".
-->for I, an apostle of Jesus the Christ [set] over my brothers, my kinsmen according-to flesh used-to-selfishly-wish, [that] he is-to-be anathema!

--------------------------------
Word study:

1) I-was-wishing is also: I-used-to-pray,myself, or vaguely: I-used-to-wish,myself, or: I-used-to-selfishly-pray,
1) ηυχο-μην.

Now; find every example of this word within the KJV/NIV bible's canon.

The root of the word appears to be ηυχο, (but a caveat explained below).
I can find the root spelled the same in only one other place:
Acts 27:29(KJV) translated ηυχο-ντο, "wished" BUT The http://biblehub.com/interlinear/acts/27-29.htm lexicon says prayed. see Acts 27:29(NIV).

And NOTE: that's it for the the whole bible as found in the KJV.

Not much to go on.... but we already hit a difference worth noticing: the lexicon AND NIV said "pray" vs. KJV "wish".
They really aren't quite the same idea, so we need more info.
.....

So, now a caveat:
Many Greek words change their tense (present tense, future tense, etc.) by modifying or adding letters at the start or end of a word.
English does this too, Eat vs. Ate, or jumped, vs. jumps, although changing the start of a word in English is not very common.

The practice of modifying the start of a word is called augmentation, and an augment is typically changing a vowel length/sound, adding a vowel, or duplicating the starting consonant.
Greek does it regularly for nearly all verbs (excepting the "being" verbs. ) So, this is a predictable property of Greek words.

The word we're looking at has a long E (Eta), ηυχο- which means it is LIKELY augmented, and the actual root word should have a short 'e' sound, AKA epsilon, or rarely, an 'a' AKA alpha.

I, therefore, look for examples of "euCho-"/ευχο- or "auCho"/αυχο- and if they mean anything like "pray" or "wish" I know Eta is in fact an augment.
A full search shows "au" is never found in the bible, and even in some books outside the bible. So--it's not in the root word for certain. (No surprise).

But ... When searching for euCho, I found a very large number of examples, and very distinct patterns of usage:

++++++++ 1st) Pattern found:
This pattern, unfortunately, contains a pre-position/preposition:
: pros-euCho-men-___, προσ-ευχο-μεν-___

In another thread, I discussed the idea of when a preposition is part of a word:
http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=54077&p=847367&viewfull=1#post847367
So, I won't revisit it, but only claim that since a non-final sigma is on the preposition -- it really is PART of the word.

In general:
The preposition pros, means in "in front of", or "toward", and can carry the connotation "preferred" or vaguely "on behalf of".

The precise meaning is usually influenced by the kind of clause it is found in; but as this is a compound word, there is no clause. [MENTION=13142]Sparrowhawke[/MENTION] posted a sheet which has the basic meaning of prepositions, but without any indication of how clauses affect them.
http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=52286&p=850080&viewfull=1#post850080

So, I'm just going to propose a concordance of the compound word for reference, seeing what word is used in the KJV translation:
Pros-euCho-men- =προσ-ευχο-μεν-__ and Pros-euCho- =προσ-ευχο-__
Matthew 6:7, Matthew 26:39, Mark 11:25, Mark 12:40, Luke 1:10, Luke 3:21, Luke 5:16, Luke 9:18, Luke 11:1, Ephesians 6:18, Acts 10:30, Acts 11:5, Acts 12:12, Acts 16:25, Acts 22:17, 1Corinthians 11:4,5, Ephesians 6:18, Colossians 1:3,9, Colossians 4:3, Jude 1:20 ; and then in the LXX; 1Samuel 1:12, 1Kings 8:54, 2Chronicles 7:1, Ezra 10:1, Ezra 11;4, Isaiah 45:20, and Daniel 9:20

And these are all remaining examples of: Pros-euCho- =προσ-ευχο-__
Luke 20:47 , Pros-euCho-ntai=προσ-ευχο-νται, Philippians 1:9, Pros-euCho-mai=προσ-ευχο-μαι, 2Thessalonians 1:11 Pros-euCho-mai=προσ-ευχο-μαι
Psalm 109:4 Pros-euCho-mEn=προσ-ευχο-μην ( Note: clearly preferential praying, or perhaps praying in front of/on behalf of ?? enemies ?? )
Jeremiah 7:16, 11:14, 14:11, pros-euCh-ou=προσ-ευχ-ου, ([you,yourself] Pray on behalf of) euCh-ou=ευχ-ου

Check them youself, as 100% of them translate "prayer" or "pray"... never desire or wish.

++++++++++++ 2nd) pattern found:
I also found the word from Romans 9:3 (euCho-) free of the preposition.

2Corinthians 13:7,9 euCho-meTha=ευχο-μεθα, * "pray", but "pros" exists as a *separate* word.
Jeremiah 22:27 euCho-ntai=ευχο-νται ** "desire"
1Samuel 2:9 euCho-mai=ευχο-μαι , "pray"
Daniel 6:12 euCho-men-on=ευχο-μεν-ον "petition"
Daniel 6:14 euCho-men-on=ευχο-μεν-ον "petition"

Therefore: combining all examples, there are only three potential exceptions to "prayer"/"pray":
But, two exceptions are nouns (a petition), which ARE directed to God (Daniel 6:11) and therefore ARE prayers.

That leaves Jeremiah as the sole possible exception to "pray", and yet the context plus the final word of the sentence "apo-strophePs-Osin"
leads to the idea, again, that it is an active prayer -- if possibly to the wrong God / idol.
(Next post)

 

[About the Son of God]

Now to finish up the word study from the previous post.
All others may skip this....

In summary, this is what I know about the word translated "wish":
It's not "thelema" the normal Greek word for "wish", it's not the optative which is the wishful tense, but it's always translated in passages as "prayer" or where prayer is an very strong inference.

Word #1) found in Romans 9:3 is therefore primarily Prayer, not just a "wish" ; though one could argue it was in vain, and a wish in that sense.

Next: concerning the grammar/declension of the word.
The word ηυχο-μην is clearly augmented, (long Eta), and I know the ending makes it 1st person middle voice.
The three possible choices of tense, (based on the ending): are Aorist, Poetic/Imperfect, or Pluperfect

The word fits the Imperfect tense the best, because it has no reduplication (pluperfect) nor a required sigma (aorist).
There is one issue for the last letter, "nu", is not on most charts for imperfect; but might be "nu" movable.
Finally: The lexicon also says that it is an imperfect verb.
So, I basically agree with the linked page: V-IIM/P-1S, Verb, Indicitive, Imperfect / first person singular
Even if it's the ultra rare pluperfect, it still means something finished in the past...

Therefore it's meaning by part of speech is along the lines of:
I-often-used-to-pray, myself or I-often-used-to-wish, myself, I-used-to-selfishly-wish, I-used-to-selfishly-pray.

--------------------------------------------------
Final: Study of Jeremiah 22:27.

Jeremiah 22:27 a)εις b)δε c)την d)γην e)ην f)αυτοι g)ευχονται h)ταις i)ψυχαις j)αυτων k)ου l)μη m)απο-στρεψ-ω-σιν

The word (m) as used in Greek theater, means a turning-aside from the play to talk to something not existing on stage: esp: to "God" or the audience.
http://grammar.about.com/od/ab/g/apostrophe.htm
It also means a reference point, the resting, or final place on a circuitous journey, eg: a home, or even the refrain of a song, as opposed to the verses (strophes).
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/strophe (definition #2)
strophe to apo-strophe:
Therefore it can mean either "no, [they] don't return-home ?" or "no, [they] don't speak-to-God ?" or emphasizing the double negative: "[they] never speak to God?"

--> But "even-in the land" they were praying, themselves, TO-these souls of-theirs, no, [they] never speak to God. (apostrophe). or else "no, [they] don't return-home."
Either idea is plausible, and both actually fit the context.

The explicit "To (dative) these souls of theirs" shows the implausibility of the word meaning a mere "wish", and also, in the next sentence there is a reference to a "man" who is a broken "idol";
Hence it's contextually about a sin -- praying to idols and putting one's trust in the "idol" king.

Therefore, I'm sure the word root from Romans 9:3 consistently means or clearly infers prayer throughout the rest of the bible.

Note: It occurs to me after letting this sit for a day, that I might have missed word forms that change the ending vowel of the word.
eg: subjunctives.
If anyone is interested, I'll trace that out too -- otherwise, I'll leave it as an exercise with hints:

Hmmm... this is close, but I don't think it's the same word, ηυξατο : contracted from: EuCh-sato ( ηυχ-σατο-->ηυξατο ) it means to make a vow. The vowel is dropped and sigma added, which is a big enough change to be unlikely. But even if it were considered, for arguments sake -- it seems to be translated vow as a verb, or separation as a noun, rather consistently. Separation being part of a vow, kind of vow...

I can't find anything else that fits the pattern even close... so I think that does it. This Bible word-study is now exhaustive.