God's Election

[Drew]

The background of Romans 9 is Romans 8 and the golden thread of redemption.

29 For whom he foreknew, he also foreordained to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren:
30 and whom he foreordained, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

This is incorrect. Romans is not a linear book, it has a spiral structure. And Romans 9 sits above Romans 3 in the spiral, it is not a simple continuation of Romans 8:

Post 1 in a series about the Romans 3 to Romans 9 connection:

In Romans 3, Paul raises a number of questions and he raises them very specifically in the context of national Israel and the covenant. In the very first 2 verses, we have an introductory question, focussing on the Jew (national Israel) and her covenant role of being a blessing to the world:

1What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? 2Much in every way! First of all, they have been entrusted with the very words of God.

To be entrusted with the words of God is to be given those words for the sake of someone else. This is clearly a reference to the covenantal role given to Israel to be a blessing to the world.

Now look at how Paul introduces Romans 9 - with the very same issue of national Israel. And here he elaborates on answers to the question of 3:1 that he has already given in 3:2:

3For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, 4the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. 5Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised

These are, of course , the advantages of being a member of national Israel.

Post 2 shortly

 

[Drew]

Post 2 in a series on connections between Romans 3 and Romans 9

Now back to chapter 3, we get a more nuanced set of questions. These questions are about the more complex and specific issue of how the faithlessness of the Jew actually, and admittedly strangely, allows God’s own righteousness to shine forth, and whether the Jew should be blamed in such a context:

5But if our unrighteousness brings out God's righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? That God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us?7Someone might argue, “If my falsehood enhances God's truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner�

Again, Paul is referring to the Jew here – in verse 7, he is talking about a hypothetical Jew raising the questions. The context demands this - chapter 3 is clearly focused on Israel and Israel only in the first 8 verses. It is only in verse 9 that Paul aligns himself with the Gentile, for rhetorical purposes, and asks "Is the Gentile any better?"

Make no mistake: these are questions about God's fairness in the way he has treated Israel. Paul is still talking about the Jew in the above - he is not talking "humanity in general". We know this for two reasons: First, he has clearly introduced the chapter with an Israel focus and there is no reason to believe he has generalized beyond this without notice. Second, it is only later (verse 9 and following) that he expands his treatment to include the Gentile.

Now back to chapter 9:

What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15For he says to Moses,
"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."[f] 16It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earthâ€Â. 18Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden. 19One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?

It is clear that this is the very same complex question – is God unjust when he condemns the unrighteousness of someone even that very unrighteousness is used by God to promote God’s glory and purpose. And even though the question here is framed in respect to Pharaoh, the overall rhetorical structure of Romans 9 drives us inexorably to the conclusion that Paul is working up to making a similar point about Israel.

Post 3 to follow...

 

[Drew]

Post 3 (last post) in a series on the connections between Romans 3 and Romans 9:

And later in Romans 9 we get a more refined answer to the same highly specific questions of chapters 3 and 9. Here is where the Pharaoh-specificity of the preceding text is replaced with a very strong implication of an Israel focus (in respect to the vessels of destruction):

22What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrathâ€â€prepared for destruction? 23What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory 24even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?

This is the answer to the Romans 3 question. God has hardened Israel - remember the potter and his pot. Why has God done this? In order to allow God to fulfil the Abrahamic covenant promise of using Israel to bless the world. And this is precisely why the answer to the question of God’s faithfulness in the following Romans 3 question is “noâ€Â:

Will their lack of faith nullify God's faithfulness?

Remember that Romans 3 starts with a covenantal focus. So the “faithfulness†here is not some kind of “general†faithfulness – it denotes God’s faithfulness to the covenant. How has God been faithful to the covenant promise of using Israel to bless the world? The potter account of Romans 9 is the answer – He has hardened her, just like a clay pot in hardened in the purposes of the potter.

And this is underscored in Romans 11 where context is clear that the “they†is Israel:

Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles

Paul is an exceedingly sophisticated writer. In chapter 3, he raises questions about God's treatment of Israel. In chapter 9, he gives answers to these question. Please note how specific one of the chapter 3 questions is - how does the unrighteousness of the Jew increase God's righteousness?. And the potter account is the perfect answer. For some reason, God has "molded Israel for destruction" - effectively elected her to be the place where the sin of the world is heaped together and brought to full flower of expression. This is how the "falsehood" or stumble of the Jew enhances God's glory because God has used this stumble to bring salvation to the world.

Some may question the sense of God molding Israel to be a vessel to bear the sin of the world. Well, I trust you know how I will respond - God does precisely the same thing to Jesus, making Him the vessel into which the sins of the world are collected and borne. Israel is acting as the “set-up†man for Jesus – being hardened by being the place sin is heaped up and accumulated before it is transferred to her representative Messiah where it is then condemned.

Now, if the potter stuff in Romans 9 is really about the pre-destined lost and the pre-destined saved, this entire, rich, subtle, and interconnected argument woven through Romans simply falls apart. Does that really seem plausible to you?

 

[Heidi]

Now, if the potter stuff in Romans 9 is really about the pre-destined lost and the pre-destined saved, this entire, rich, subtle, and interconnected argument woven through Romans simply falls apart. Does that really seem plausible to you?

So then you don't believe that God has the right to choose who will enter his kingdom and who won't. Is that correct? :gah

Jesus said in John 6:64-65 when talking about Judas, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him." Do you know what people have to do to get saved from eternal condemnation? If so, then please explain why Jesus said that in relation to Judas.

 

[whirlwind]

• Malachi 3:18 Then shall ye return, and discern between the righteous and the wicked, between him that serveth God and him that serveth Him not.

The elect are already called, justified, glorifed and predestined [Romans 8:30]. They are those that "shall ye return and discern." Who do the elect then discern between? The righteous and the wicked.

The point being...the elect ARE the kingdom of God but more shall be given entrance at the end of the millennium. Above you see three separate groups...not just the elect and the wicked. You must make room for the righteous.

 

[Heidi]

• Malachi 3:18 Then shall ye return, and discern between the righteous and the wicked, between him that serveth God and him that serveth Him not.

The elect are already called, justified, glorifed and predestined [Romans 8:30]. They are those that "shall ye return and discern." Who do the elect then discern between? The righteous and the wicked.

The point being...the elect ARE the kingdom of God but more shall be given entrance at the end of the millennium. Above you see three separate groups...not just the elect and the wicked. You must make room for the righteous.

Yup.

 

[mondar]

Wright admits that he is not an exegete.

Nonsense. Please stop with your misrepresentations - do I need to trot your long list of previous untruths? Either you or your source are engaged in either unwitting or intentional distortion. No one who knows anything at all about Wright would make such a claim. Not all agree with him, but no sensible person would say that "Wright is not an exegete"

If I find the exact quote from his book "Paul, in fresh perspective" from Fortress Press will you admit your error here? Or will you do as you normally do and just go on with more accusations?

NTWrights book on Paul begins with the first chapter on his philosophy of isogesis.

More nonsense. You have a history of simply claiming "isogesis" on the part of those whose opinions you do not share.

It is true the term "isogesis" is mine, and I stand by the accusation that Wright is doing isogesis. In the first chapter of the book (I quoted above.) he writes about Pauls cultural milieu and how Paul was writing from his own cultural milieu and world view. He then makes Pauls world view all about "creation" and "covenant." How does he come to this conclusion? He does not quote one text at the start but just assumes that his own statements on Pauls cultural milieu proves that Paul must be writing about things in his own culture.

Wright speaks of the "narrative background of the NT epistles. He believes that you should read "covenant" and "creation" into the NT scriptures.

You continue to bear false witness. You will find nothing in Wright that suggests that "you should read something in". Instead his argument is that the scripture reveal a narrative that needs to be honoured and respected.

And if you want to debate the matter of "covenant" in Romans, for example, I am more than happy to oblige.

You seem never to tire of loosing that debate.

Of course NTWrights position assumes a liberal view of scriptures.

You wouldn't be trying to score cheap rhetorical points here, knowing how the word "liberal" is poison to many evangelicals, would you?

It seems to me to be more a matter of basic honesty to identify the theology for what it is.

G Grasham Machen once wrote a book detailing that liberal theology is not actually a different kind of Christianity then evangelicalism. Liberal theology is a completely different religion. It comes from a different world view.

N T Wright can make Romans to be a book completely contradictory to Ephesians, and then just dismiss Ephesians as non-Pauline. Of course as an evangelical, scripture must be checked against scripture. More difficult and shorter passages must be understood against the longer more clear passages.

Drew is a disciple of N T Wright. He will not be doing any honest exegesis of any NT text. Wait and see, he will pathologically relate every passage to certain OT background narratives that are usually minor points of support.

You continue to apply venomous rhetoric - something I neverdo to other posters. You imply dishonesty and "pathology" on my part. You have no evidence at all for this and you are taking the low road of rhetoric and mud-slinging. Shame on you.[/quote]
The main essence of the quote above you copied had nothing to do with honesty. "Honest" was merely a word used as an adjective to describe correct exegesis.

The same with the word "pathologically relate." I was not giving you a diagnosis, but rather using the term "pathologically" to imply that you are far too stuck on a certain concept being in scriptures.

If you read the word "honest" and "pathologically" in context you should recognize that it was neither a moral accusation or a diagnosis. Possibly you exegete my words the same way you exegete scriptures. You focus on individual words to the exclusion of the context.

Are not your errors more "low road rhetoric" then my choice of adjectives?

 

[mondar]

The background of Romans 9 is Romans 8 and the golden thread of redemption.

29 For whom he foreknew, he also foreordained to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren:
30 and whom he foreordained, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

This is incorrect. Romans is not a linear book, it has a spiral structure. And Romans 9 sits above Romans 3 in the spiral, it is not a simple continuation of Romans 8:

Post 1 in a series about the Romans 3 to Romans 9 connection:

In Romans 3, Paul raises a number of questions and he raises them very specifically in the context of national Israel and the covenant. In the very first 2 verses, we have an introductory question, focussing on the Jew (national Israel) and her covenant role of being a blessing to the world:

1What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? 2Much in every way! First of all, they have been entrusted with the very words of God.

To be entrusted with the words of God is to be given those words for the sake of someone else. This is clearly a reference to the covenantal role given to Israel to be a blessing to the world.

Now look at how Paul introduces Romans 9 - with the very same issue of national Israel. And here he elaborates on answers to the question of 3:1 that he has already given in 3:2:

3For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, 4the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. 5Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised

These are, of course , the advantages of being a member of national Israel.

Post 2 shortly

Drew, there is simply no logic in any of what you write above. Again, you focus on just a few words here and there. Do you outline the argument of the passage and show that a theme is developed that is the same? Not at all! You merely pick a word here and there and show that they relate. You do not work on a sentence as a unit, nor establish paragraphs of meaning. Again, what you do above is total isogesis.

The verse you quote in 3:2 is for the purpose of demonstrating that even though the Jew had certain advantages, they were still guilty of unbelief. They had the advantage of having the oracles of God, and yet they did not believe. To associate this with Chapter 9 is exegetical folly. Chapter 9 defines who the promises to the Jew went to, and it was not to Jewish unbelievers. Verse 6 tells us that they were not all Israel who were Israel. Or in other words, the promises do not go to unbelievers.

I find it amusing that you think there is no connection between chapter 8 and chapter 9. I could easily use your method and point to a number of vocabulary words that are repeated in 8 and 9. The term election would be first. See 8:33 and 9:11. Other parallel words are used. Gods purpose 8:28 & 9:11. However, I know better. Simple word or phrase associations do not establish context.

Well, enough for now. You seem to have a lot more time for this then I do. I am going to have to quit here.

 

[mutzrein]

Alright, you believe in election. That's fine, as long as you understand that you don't know who they are...God does. How shall they hear unless you preach. (or share the gospel).
BTW, the most prolific writer of the New Testament on Election...was also the greatest evangelist...and no, he was not selective in who he preached too. The foreknowledge of God, is not our knowledge. We are only required to do what He tells us...and that is share the gospel.

We are also required to believe in the one he sent. John 6:29 "For the work of God is this; to believe in the one he sent." That means to believe every word that comes from the mouth of God. Until we do, we're not passing along the correct gospel. Again, only God knows who his elect are but we don't. So we are not to be selective about with whom we share it either. ;)

Many seem to think that God's word is merely what is written in the bible and so they commit themselves to studying it, in order that they may use the words to ‘preach’ to the lost. Now I in no way deny the validity of scripture and the messages conveyed therein by men of God. However, God’s word is living. It is not just words written in ink on the pages of a book. His Word is alive and living within me . . . and those within whom the word of God dwells. God’s word is precious. It is truth and life and it can only be quickened by means of the Spirit of God to those to whom God has prepared to receive it.

Many quote the parable of the sower to support the ‘great commission’ of preaching the gospel. And we all know the outcome. Some seed fell on the path, some on rocky ground, some amongst thistles and some on good ground. But is was only the seed that fell on good ground that grew to maturity and produced a crop. And here is the message for me. I have been given seed to sow. The seed that I have been given is precious and because of this I must be careful as to where I sow it. So the message to me is loud and clear, “do not castyour pearls before swine.â€Â

 

[whirlwind]

• Malachi 3:18 Then shall ye return, and discern between the righteous and the wicked, between him that serveth God and him that serveth Him not.

The elect are already called, justified, glorifed and predestined [Romans 8:30]. They are those that "shall ye return and discern." Who do the elect then discern between? The righteous and the wicked.

The point being...the elect ARE the kingdom of God but more shall be given entrance at the end of the millennium. Above you see three separate groups...not just the elect and the wicked. You must make room for the righteous.

Yup.

Heidi...you wrote....

Those are the "elect" the real Israel, those chosen before the creation of the world to come to Christ and be adopted as his sons. So the elect are elected for redemption, (heaven) and the non-elect are prepared for destruction as Romans 9:22 explains. Esau was not one of the chosen for redemption because God hated him. It's that simple

I don't understand that statement and the in relation to the same subject.

 

[Joe67]

Rebekah's womb is an object lesson of the church of Jesus Christ. Isaac is an object lesson of Jesus.

Within the church of Jesus Christ there are two revelations of Jesus. In the study of that by which the Spirit of Christ has symbolized the sufferings of Christ and the glory which should follow, follow the object lesson of Jacob and his relationship to Esau all the way to their burying of their father Isaac in peace.

Jacob/Israel and Esau finally lived in peace, but separate. Remember that Israel bowed down to his brother Esau 7 times when they met on Jacob/Israel's return home. This is like Paul shaving his head and taking the purification vow at Jerusalem as Paul was brought into the time of his captivity.

Joe

 

[Drew]

If I find the exact quote from his book "Paul, in fresh perspective" from Fortress Press will you admit your error here? Or will you do as you normally do and just go on with more accusations?

If you provide the statement and the full context, of course I will. But I am certain you will not make the implied meaning of your statement "stick".

It is true the term "isogesis" is mine, and I stand by the accusation that Wright is doing isogesis.

Of course you do. And, of course, you give no evidence.

He then makes Pauls world view all about "creation" and "covenant." How does he come to this conclusion? He does not quote one text at the start but just assumes that his own statements on Pauls cultural milieu proves that Paul must be writing about things in his own culture.

Well, it is true that Wright "assumes" that Paul was a product of his own time, whose ideas are informed by the world in which he lives. That does not seem controversial to me. Is Paul a 21st century westerner instead? And Wright does assume that a letter a specific church, such as the chrurch at Rome, indeed dealt with issues in that church. Do you think the letter was written to some other group of people than the identified addressees? Lest mondar continue his misrepresentations, the reader needs to know that while Wright recognizes that the letter was a real letter written to real people to address them, this does not place the letter in a time capsule so that it loses its meaning for us.

And if you want to debate the matter of "covenant" in Romans, for example, I am more than happy to oblige.

You seem never to tire of loosing that debate.

The record shows otherwise. In each and every discussion we have had on this matter, you have been handed your hat. Do you want to have another go? Yes or no?

The main essence of the quote above you copied had nothing to do with honesty. "Honest" was merely a word used as an adjective to describe correct exegesis.

Well, we'll let the reader decide if the following statement is not an implication that I am a dishonest person:

He will not be doing any honest exegesis of any NT text.

 

[Drew]

The verse you quote in 3:2 is for the purpose of demonstrating that even though the Jew had certain advantages, they were still guilty of unbelief. They had the advantage of having the oracles of God, and yet they did not believe.

No. You conveniently ignore the reference to "entrusting". The entrusting of the "oracles" of God to the Jews is a reference to their covenantal obligation to be a light to the world. Besides, Romans is all about covenant - something you seem to deny. It's not just there in Romans 3.

 

[whirlwind]

Rebekah's womb is an object lesson of the church of Jesus Christ. Isaac is an object lesson of Jesus.

Within the church of Jesus Christ there are two revelations of Jesus. In the study of that by which the Spirit of Christ has symbolized the sufferings of Christ and the glory which should follow, follow the object lesson of Jacob and his relationship to Esau all the way to their burying of their father Isaac in peace.

Jacob/Israel and Esau finally lived in peace, but separate. Remember that Israel bowed down to his brother Esau 7 times when they met on Jacob/Israel's return home. This is like Paul shaving his head and taking the purification vow at Jerusalem as Paul was brought into the time of his captivity.

Joe

Jacob/Israel living in peace with Esau....Paristroika or the cold war?

Joe, thank you for bringing forward the "burying of their father." I never saw that lesson before.

 

[Heidi]

Many seem to think that God's word is merely what is written in the bible and so they commit themselves to studying it, in order that they may use the words to ‘preach’ to the lost. Now I in no way deny the validity of scripture and the messages conveyed therein by men of God. However, God’s word is living. It is not just words written in ink on the pages of a book. His Word is alive and living within me . . . and those within whom the word of God dwells. God’s word is precious. It is truth and life and it can only be quickened by means of the Spirit of God to those to whom God has prepared to receive it.

Amen. The seed is also the word so when we are born of the Holy Spirit, the word also lives inside of us. So one cannot believe the word in his heart, until he receives the word in his heart.

 

[Drew]

If so, then please explain why Jesus said that in relation to Judas.

Heidi, I am not going to answer this. I am presently focused on Romans 9 and what Paul is saying in that text. From the totality of your posts, you seem to be arguing this way:

1. We have a bunch of texts outside Romans 9 which teach election of individuals;

2. Romans 9 is about election;

3. Therefore Romans 9 must be about election of individuals.

This is incorrect reasoning, whether or not you in particular are guily of it. The word "election" means "choice", not "choice unto eternal destiny". So Paul could be claiming that God made other kinds of choices in respect to Jacob, Esau, and Pharoah.

And that is what Paul does. And he tells us what the choices were and they were not choices about eternal destiny.

If people want to reject Paul's words and subsitute their own, they are free to do so.

 

[Drew]

The background of Romans 9 is Romans 8 and the golden thread of redemption.

29 For whom he foreknew, he also foreordained to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren:
30 and whom he foreordained, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

This thread speaks of individuals and the process of justification and then glorification. This issue of personal salvation leads right into the discussion of Romans 9.

Post 1 of a counter-argument to the above:

As part of an argument that Romans 9 contains a treatment of the doctrine of the election of individuals to an eternal destiny, appeal is often made to the seeming “pre-destination†statement near the end of Romans 8 (as per above).

Assuming (for the sake of the argument) that the above really asserts individual election to heaven / hell, the argument goes that the Romans 9 material about potters and vessels of destruction and glory is an elaboration of this same point. This argument has a certain superficial appeal, but I suggest it ultimately does not work.

First, there is a noticeable discontinuity between chapters 5 to 8 and chapters 9 to 11. The former block of chapters is focused mainly on the benefits of being a member of a family that knows no ethnic boundaries while chapters 9 to 11 focus heavily on ethnic Israel. I concede that there is indeed material in chapters 5 to 8 that focuses on the ethnic Jew – Romans 7 is one example. But chapters 9 to 11 is a full-dress treatment of the ethnic Israel question, while chapters 5 to 8 are substantially about something else. So the reader should not simply assume that chapter 9 is a continuation of the argument from chapter 8.

As has been argued extensively earlier in this thread, Romans 9 is really an elaboration of Romans 3, not Romans 8. Romans is structured as an ascending spiral – Paul introduces an idea and later returns to elaborate it. What this means is that in later parts of the letter, we should be able to “look down†in the spiral and understand that the material we are now reading is an elaboration of earlier material directly below us in the spiral (that is, “one ull turn†below us).

 

[Drew]

The background of Romans 9 is Romans 8 and the golden thread of redemption.

29 For whom he foreknew, he also foreordained to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren:
30 and whom he foreordained, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

This thread speaks of individuals and the process of justification and then glorification. This issue of personal salvation leads right into the discussion of Romans 9.

Post 2 of a counterargument to the above:

Where in the spiral are we at the end of chapter 8? We are at the point in the spiral immediately above material at the end of Romans 2:

For indeed circumcision is of value if you practice the Law; but if you are a transgressor of the Law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. 26So if the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? 27And he who is physically uncircumcised, if he keeps the Law, will he not judge you who though having the letter of the Law and circumcision are a transgressor of the Law? 28For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. 29But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God

What is Romans 8 all about? It is an elaboration of this very concept of being lead by the Spirit, and not the Torah:

For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. 3For what the Law {***Torah} could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, 4so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

But this “spiral†hypothesis is not based only on the fact that Romans 8 can be seen as one turn in the spiral above Romans 2. In fact, as can be argued in grisly detail, chapters 5 to 8, as a whole block, have Paul ascribing all the covenant promises ostensibly made to the nation of Israel to the Jew + Gentile church. This further sustains the correctness of the spiral model. The material in Romans 2 is effectively an assertion that there is a new covenant people – one not marked out by the Torah but by the action of the Spirit. And chapters 5 to 8 elaborate this. Thus we can see chapters 5 to 8 as “one turn of the spiral†above the material at the end of chapter 2.

 

[Drew]

The background of Romans 9 is Romans 8 and the golden thread of redemption.

29 For whom he foreknew, he also foreordained to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren:
30 and whom he foreordained, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

This thread speaks of individuals and the process of justification and then glorification. This issue of personal salvation leads right into the discussion of Romans 9.

Post 3 of a counter-argument to the above:

Consider the position that Paul is in at the end of chapter 2. He has made the controversial claim that the true family of God is organized around the indwelling of the Spirit, something available to Jew and Gentile alike. Unlike many modern readers who do not see the covenantal theme here, Paul knows full well that his argument cannot avoid the following vexing question: Given all the covenantal promises made to Jews, how can God be seen as fair or righteous, given what he was just said at the end of Romans 2 about the covenant family not being limited to Jews?

So this is precisely what he turns to in Romans 3. There he asks these questions about God and his treatment of Israel:

1What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision?

3What then? If some {***Jews, by context} did not believe, their unbelief will not nullify the faithfulness of God, will it?

5But if our unrighteousness {***i.e. Israel’s unrighteousness by context} brings out God's righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? That God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us?

As has already been argued in detail, these are the very same questions that are picked up in Romans 9 after an introduction that clearly focuses on the plight of Israel:

What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there?

You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?

On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it?

21Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?

 

[Drew]

The background of Romans 9 is Romans 8 and the golden thread of redemption.

29 For whom he foreknew, he also foreordained to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren:
30 and whom he foreordained, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

This thread speaks of individuals and the process of justification and then glorification. This issue of personal salvation leads right into the discussion of Romans 9.

Part 4 (last part) of a counter-argument to the above:

Now to counter the objection that I am “reading in†a connection between chapters 3 and 9, presuming the spiral and leveraging that assumption to my benefit (an odd claim since both chapters state with a clear and ambiguous focus on ethnic Israel), let’s review the evidence for the spiral model:

1. The end of Romans 2 contains a compact claim that God has a new covenant family – one marked out by the Spirit and inclusive of Gentiles;

2. Romans 5 through 8 is a detailed treatment of how the very covenant covenant promises made to ethnic Israel have been ascribed to the new covenant family (I have not defended this here, but I can). Therefore, at the end of chapter 8, the reader is one “full turn in the spiral†above the material at the end of Romans 2;

3. At the end of chapter 2 the obvious question is: Has God been fair in his treatment of Israel since God seems to have forgotten his promises made to her and her alone?

4. Chapter 3 expresses this very concern in a set of questions about Israel. Now if the spiral hypothesis is correct, what would we expect next? It is, of course, this: Just as chapters 5 to 8 elaborates on the end of chapter 2, chapter 9, and perhaps following chapters, should likewise elablorate on the questions at the beginning of chapter 3. If the end of chapter 8 looks down on the end of chapter 2 one full turn below in the spiral, then as we move along to the beginning of chapter 9 we would naturally expect to be “one full turn†above chapter 3.

5. And, of course, the evidence bears this out. Romans 9 starts with an expression of grief about Israel. This is not a continuation of the (alleged) Romans 8 point about “individual election†– a point that has no Israel specificity whatsoever. And Romans 9 presents us with basically the same questions that we got in Romans 3. These are questions about God and Israel.