God's Election

[Drew]

A follow-on to my previous post. I suspect that someone could try to argue that the Old Testament allusion to "one serving the other" constitutes a sudden transition from the rather obvious "nation-level" treatment of the preceding lines to the specificity of Esau and Jacob as individuals. I had not really dealt with that possibilty but intend to.

I dont see such an effort as being pertinent to our present discussion. Abraham was chosen, there were national promises included in his individual election. God said to him that he would make of him a great nation. However, since that material is not quoted by Paul either, I dont see how it is pertinent to Pauls discussion. All you have to do to see that Paul is talking about individual election more then its national impications (but not to the exclusion of national impications) is to look at what Paul chose to quote, and what he did not quote.

You don't seem to realize that you are begging the very question at issue. In your first sentence you appear to assume that a concern with "individual election" has already been established. But this is precisely what is at issue here. The rest of your post is similar - you appear to be "asking me to simply take your word on it" when you write "All you have to do to see that Paul is talking about individual election more then its national impications". Surely you realize that this is very issue on the table.

I am constructing a detailed and comprehensive argument about the whole Esau / Jacob thing. I claim that the argument makes a strong case that the reference to a promise in relation to these two individuals is really not about them as individuals at all, but rather about two nations that issue from them. Of course, even I would grant that there is indeed a very limited sense in which the Esau / Jacob promise is "about individuals". But, I intend to show that the substantial underying point that Paul has in mind is about nations.

 

[bleitzel]

Drew, looking forward to your treatment of the Esau/Jacob story as I have recently been studying this one also and have seen so many interesting nuances in it!

 

[mondar]

I am constructing a detailed and comprehensive argument about the whole Esau / Jacob thing. I claim that the argument makes a strong case that the reference to a promise in relation to these two individuals is really not about them as individuals at all, but rather about two nations that issue from them. Of course, even I would grant that there is indeed a very limited sense in which the Esau / Jacob promise is "about individuals". But, I intend to show that the substantial underying point that Paul has in mind is about nations.

Let me quote the passage.
Rom 9:11 for the children being not yet born, neither having done anything good or bad, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth,
Rom 9:12 it was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
Rom 9:13 Even as it is written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.
Verse 13 is an illustration of verse 11. Do you see the obvious connection between verse 13 and verse 11?

* In verse 11 Paul speaks of the timing of election. It occurred before the birth of the children. It occurred before these individuals did anything good or bad. This was to demonstrate that the election of Jacob, an individual person, was not based upon his own works.
* Verse 13 is Paul's OT proof text. He chooses material for his proof text that does not relate to Jacob and Esau becoming Israel and Edom. Why? Why does Paul avoid all the OT material that talks about the nations? Why does he choose a quote from Genesis related to individual election? The obvious answer is because he is making a point about individual election in Romans 9.

 

[mondar]

This is a clear and coherent statement of a position. As long as we all understand that, at some point, it needs to be substantially defended, not mererly asserted. And, of course, the same standard applies to my assertion that what you call "the narrative background" is really the main point.

I can do this in Romans 4 and show that the material Paul selects is not about Abraham becoming a "Father of many nations." He selects quotes related to justification. So then the quotes from the OT are in Romans 4 as supporting points to establish justification by faith.

I would prefer doing this in a detailed argument in Romans 4. I dont have a lot of time to give to this so you would have to slow down and give me some time. In fact I have to leave again now. Later.

 

[Drew]

I am constructing a detailed and comprehensive argument about the whole Esau / Jacob thing. I claim that the argument makes a strong case that the reference to a promise in relation to these two individuals is really not about them as individuals at all, but rather about two nations that issue from them. Of course, even I would grant that there is indeed a very limited sense in which the Esau / Jacob promise is "about individuals". But, I intend to show that the substantial underying point that Paul has in mind is about nations.

Let me quote the passage.
Rom 9:11 for the children being not yet born, neither having done anything good or bad, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth,
Rom 9:12 it was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
Rom 9:13 Even as it is written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.
Verse 13 is an illustration of verse 11. Do you see the obvious connection between verse 13 and verse 11?

Obviously I do. But recognizing this is perfectly consistent with my hypothesis. As I will argue, Paul is here indeed referring to individuals and choices that God has made in respect to them, but his main point has to do with nations, as we will see.

It simply will not to do to claim "well here he is writing about individuals do his overall point is about individuals". As I have already shown through one example - and I can give many, many more, there is long scriptural precedent of using singular people to represent nations. The many uses of "Jacob" in books like Isaiah and Jeremiah to represent nations, and not Jacob individually, is one major example.

 

[Drew]

In the following set of posts, I present an argument that a "nation" level reading is intended in Paul's use of the Esau / Jacob example in Romans 9. Sorry for the length - I do not think it could have been avoided.

Post 1:

Here is some material from Paul in Romans 9:

for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, 12it was said to her, "THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER." Just as it is written, "JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED."

A very legitimate question is this: Is Paul giving us an example of God making choices in respect to Esau and Jacob as individuals, or is he giving us an example of God making choices at the level of the nations that sprang from Esau and Jacob? Or is he doing both? While a superficial reading suggests a purely individualistic reading, I suggest the weight of evidence supports the notion that Paul is indeed, at one level talking about choices made in respect to the individuals (Jacob and Esau) but that the substantial point is one about the election of nations.

The argument that I am going to make here is focussed on the Esau / Jacob text only and, of course, on the Old Testament texts that Paul quotes from in the Esau / Jacob account. As such, I will deliberately ignore the broader context of Romans 9 – I think that one can break the problem into chunks and quite legitimately treat the Esau / Jacob account on its own. I will pre-emptively respond to those who will see this as some of kind of “admission†of not taking context into account. I am fully aware of the context, and believe that considerations of the Romans 9 context only strengthen the position I am advancing. So I am not so much ignoring context as asserting that there are considerations “local†to the Esau / Jacob account that can be treated in relative isolation. If someone wants to make a case that the Romans 9 context does not allow us to the see Esau / Jacob example as dealing with election at the “national levelâ€Â, then by all means, make your case. But please do not beg the question by simply asserting things about what Romans 9 is about.

An issue of method needs to be raised at the outset and will require substantial treatment. When Paul or Jesus quotes a text T from the Old Testament, often in the form of a short phrase or expression, two possibilities arise:

(1) The quoter intends to invoke the context that surrounds T in the source material, and have it inform his intended meaning;

(2) The quoter merely uses the phrase for his present rhetorical purposes and does not intend his point to be informed by the context in which the original use of T is set.

I suggest that the first of these is more likely correct and, as will be shown, such a construal supports the assertion that Paul is making a point about nations, not individuals, in his use of the Esau / Jacob example. To anticipate objection that the national level view rests on the assumption embodied in item (1), I will point out what should become obvious in the later stages of the argument – an “individual level†reading also requires an assumption, namely commitment to the assumption embodied in item (2).

Post 2 to follow...

 

[Drew]

Post 2:

To defend my position on this point of method – that option (1) is the correct way to see things - consider this material extracted from Mark’s account of Jesus’ trial before Caiaphus. Note that in verse 62, Jesus quotes phrases from Psalm 110 and Daniel 7:

But He kept silent and did not answer Again the high priest was questioning Him, and saying to Him, "Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?" 62And Jesus said, "I am; and you shall see THE SON OF MAN SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF POWER, and COMING WITH THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN."

As we all know, Jesus’ answer enrages Caiaphus. For the purposes of my argument, I focus on the Daniel 7 allusion. If Jesus is merely borrowing this phrase with no intent to invoke the context in which the phrase is set, his use of the phrase seems mysterious. What could Jesus mean by a bald allusion to “coming on the clouds� That Caiaphus will look out the window and see Jesus floating by on a cloud? Not likely. It is only by “bringing in the context†from Daniel 7 does Jesus’ invocation of the “coming on the clouds†image really make sense in the trial scenario. Here is the relevant context from Daniel 7:

I kept looking
Until thrones were set up,
And the Ancient of Days took His seat;
His vesture was like white snow
And the hair of His head like pure wool
His throne was ablaze with flames,
Its wheels were a burning fire.
10"A river of fire was flowing
And coming out from before Him;
Thousands upon thousands were attending Him,
And myriads upon myriads were standing before Him;
The court sat,
And the books were opened.
11"Then I kept looking because of the sound of the boastful words which the horn was speaking; I kept looking until the beast was slain, and its body was destroyed and given to the burning fire.
12"As for the rest of the beasts, their dominion was taken away, but an extension of life was granted to them for an appointed period of time.

13"I kept looking in the night visions,
And behold, with the clouds of heaven
One like a Son of Man was coming,
And He came up to the Ancient of Days
And was presented before Him.
14"And to Him was given dominion,
Glory and a kingdom,
That all the peoples, nations and men of every language
Might serve Him
His dominion is an everlasting dominion
Which will not pass away;
And His kingdom is one
Which will not be destroyed.

If Jesus is intending Caiaphus to interpret the “coming on the clouds†image in this context, the high priest’s reaction makes a lot more sense. Jesus is effectively asserting that He is the son of man figure who takes a seat next to God Himself and rules the world. This is the kind of claim that would really enrage Caiaphus. By contrast, simple invocation of the image of “coming on the clouds†has no such inflammatory content – why would it annoy Caiaphus to have Jesus make some vague claim about floating around in the sky? But when the context gets drawn in, the image gains all sorts of theological and Messianic implications that explain the high priest’s anger. Given the context of the trial scenario, not least the Messianic action in the temple for which Jesus has likely been arrested, it is very likely that Jesus intends the “coming on the clouds†allusion to elicit the Daniel 7 context from which the phrase is borrowed.

There are additional arguments that can be made as to how the Daniel 7 context gives meaning ad sense to the “coming on the clouds†image, but I will not pursue this further for the sake of brevity.

Post 3 to follow...

 

[Drew]

Post 3:

We now return to the specifics of the Jacob / Esau text. Paul quotes from Genesis 25 and Malachi 1. Here is part of the Genesis 25 context.

Isaac prayed to the LORD on behalf of his wife, because she was barren; and the LORD answered him and Rebekah his wife conceived.
22But the children struggled together within her; and she said, "If it is so, why then am I this way?" So she went to inquire of the LORD.

23The LORD said to her,
"Two nations are in your womb;
And two peoples will be separated from your body;
And one people shall be stronger than the other;
And the older shall serve the younger."

Granted, the line that Paul has transported into Romans 9, as an isolated line unto itself, appears to be an allusion to Esau and Jacob as individuals. But if Paul is invoking the context surrounding the specific statement, as Jesus does when he quotes Daniel 7 to Caiaphus, a different possibility emerges - the substance of the promise made to Sarah was not that Esau would serve Jacob, but rather that the nation that springs from Jacob will serve the nation that springs from Esau.

It is very difficult to argue that there is a transition from the obvious “nation†level treatment that has dominated all of verse 23 to a last line which is about Esau and Jacob as individuals. In particular, having established that nations and peoples are the consideration, and that one nation will be stronger than another, there is no valid rhetorical reason to conclude with a statement about Jacob and Esau as individuals - a statement about Esau serving Jacob, as specific individuals, is decidedly out of place in what has been clearly a nation level statement from the Lord to Sarah.

Compare the following 2 readings, the first representing a belief that the author of Genesis intends the last line to be seen “individualisticallyâ€Â, and the second representing belief in a nation level intent for the last line:

23The LORD said to her,
"Two nations are in your womb;
And two peoples will be separated from your body;
And one people shall be stronger than the other;
And the older of your two children shall serve the younger of your two children."

23The LORD said to her,
"Two nations are in your womb;
And two peoples will be separated from your body;
And one people shall be stronger than the other;
And the nation that springs from the older child shall serve the nation that spring from the the younger."

Rhetorically, the second reading makes perfect sense – there is logical continuity from an assertion that one people is stronger to the way this would work out in the real word – the weaker nation will be in a subservient relation to the stronger one. Conversely there is no real logical continuity in the first reading – first we get the nation level argument and then we get this logically disconnected statement about individuals. I concede that it is possible that the author has entirely left behind national considerations and, in the last line of verse 23, has turned to a strictly individual story about Esau and Jacob which, I fully recognize, the rest of the chapter endorses.

However, this requires that we deny the rather obvious logical connection to the preceding line (as just argued). If the author has just been talking about two peoples, and that one will be stronger than the other, it is entirely natural to expect a subsequent statement that one nation will act on that relative strength and dominate the other. And yet, if the individualistic line is adopted, that flow gets ignored.

Post 4 to follow...

 

[Drew]

Post 4:

I suggest that in the last line of verse 23, the author uses “Esau the elder†and “Jacob the youngerâ€Â, individuals though they are, as literary devices to refer to the nations that spring from them. Now the reader may well object to my line of argument and assert that, despite the obvious logical coherence for the verse as a whole that would result from reading the last line at the level of nations, it remains clear that the “older†is clearly Esau and the “younger†is clearly Jacob. After all, such an objector would say, the Edomites are not an “older†nation than the Israelites. Fair enough. But this objection really does rest on an a priori ruling out of the possibility of the use of the literary device I am proposing, likely grounded in the exceedingly shaky “rule†that we should always assume strict literality.

However, the Bible is full of exactly such literary usages - where a reference to a single individual is clearly a reference to an entire people. So it is entirely legitimate to read the last line of verse 23 at the “nation†level. Consider this from Jeremiah 59:

A Redeemer will come to Zion, And to those who turn from transgression in Jacob," declares the LORD.

Clearly Paul is using the allusion to Jacob as an allusion to the nation of Israel. So any appeals to common-sense of the form “If the writer of Genesis had intended a reference to nations, he would not have clearly alluded to individuals†are simply not workable – even though the reference to an elder and a younger in the Genesis text is clearly a reference to individuals, the real referent may well be nations. And such a “national†reading gives inner coherence to the reading of verse 23 that it otherwise lacks (as already argued). It should be added that, in this very letter, not two chapters back, Paul has (Romans 7) used the singular “I†to refer to the entire nation of Israel. The underlying argument for this particular assertion is available, if requested.

I will fully concede that the argument for a nation level reading of the last line of Genesis 25:23 is not exceedingly strong. I really only intend it as a plausibility argument – to show that based on the inner logic of the verse, and the precedent of the use of a certain literary device, a substantially nation-level intent is possible behind the allusion to Esau and Jacob in the last line. I suspect that most arguments for an individualist reading simply side-step the very plausible nation level reading, appealing to an overly simplisitic and wooden literalism.

Post 5 to follow...

 

[Drew]

Post 5 (last one):

I suggest that the Malachi 1 reference is the coup de grace against the individualistic take on the Esau / Jacob account in Romans 9. Taking the Malachi 1 context seriously strongly favours a “nation level†intend in Paul’s use of the Esau / Jacob example.

Paul quotes a text from Malachi 1 where God is saying that "hated Esau and loved Jacobâ€Â. Assuming that, as per an argument already given, Paul is invoking the Malachi 1 context, what, if anything, does that context reveal about whether, in the Esau / Jacob account, Paul is giving an example of “individual†or “nation†level election? Here is the text set in context:

An oracle: The word of the LORD to Israel through Malachi.
2 "I have loved you," says the LORD.
"But you ask, 'How have you loved us?'
"Was not Esau Jacob's brother?" the LORD says. "Yet I have loved Jacob, 3 but Esau I have hated, and I have turned his mountains into a wasteland and left his inheritance to the desert jackals."
4 Edom may say, "Though we have been crushed, we will rebuild the ruins."
But this is what the LORD Almighty says: "They may build, but I will demolish. They will be called the Wicked Land, a people always under the wrath of the LORD. 5 You will see it with your own eyes and say, 'Great is the LORD -even beyond the borders of Israel!'

Note the actual manifestation of God’s “hatred†of Esau that we are given. It is certainly not that Esau is sent to hell. And, more to the point, it is not about Esau as an individual at all – it is about the people of Edom and how God pours wrath on them. There is none of the ambiguity of the Genesis 25 material – where it is perhaps arguable as to whether “the older serving the younger†should be taken individualistically. Here, Malachi tells us what it means that God “hated†Esau – it was that He (God) acted a certain way towards the nation of Edom. If Paul is lifting the “Jacob I have loved and Esau I have hated†out of Malachi 1 with individualistic intent, he does so in a way that clashes with way the phrase is used in Malachi 1.

And, of course, the assertion that Paul quotes from Malachi 1 to make a “nation-level†point about election is completely consistent with how the quoted material is used in its original Biblical setting. A powerful argument, I suggest, to read the Romans 9 Esau / Jacob account at the level of nations.

 

[Drew]

All throughout Romans, and Galatians, and Ephesians Paul is teaching this new revelation, this major new teaching that all along,

If the teaching is "new" then why does he so frequently quote the OT.

Although not directed at me, and although I do not want to speak for bleitzel, I would like to say something here. There is indeed a new revelation in Romans and it is that specifically through the one faithful Israelite, Jesus, God has indeed been faithful to the Abrahamic covenant. This, of course, would not have been known in Old Testament times. And it is entirely coherent for Paul to weave many Old Testament texts into his argument. The Old Testament was a story in search of an ending (2000 years ago, anyway) - God has made all these promises to Israel about a return from exile, and here she was, at the time of Jesus, in effective exile under Rome even though back in Palestine.

Paul is giving us the climax to the story that the Jews were waiting. The covenant has reached its climax in Jesus. But it is the climax of the story spelled out in the Old Testament. So there is every reason to expect Paul to quote extensively from it - it gives us the early part of the story.

 

[Drew]

I suggest this is demonstrably false. At various points, such as here in Romans 3, Paul is indeed talking about Jews and Gentiles as groups, with no specificity to “faithfulness†or “unfaithfulnessâ€Â. These are counter-examples to your claim that “The only two categories is the people of faith who are justified by faith, and the people who are not of faithâ€Â.

Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision?

Has Paul distinguished faithful Jews from unfaithful ones? No – he is talking about all ethnic Jews.

It is just as I say, you are not reading contexts.

In only 2 verses he will say.....
Rom 3:1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what is the profit of circumcision?
Rom 3:2 Much every way: first of all, that they were intrusted with the oracles of God.
Rom 3:3 For what if some were without faith? shall their want of faith make of none effect the faithfulness of God?

I do not see how what you are saying here counters my point. I make the rather self-evident point that the verse 1 reference to "the Jew" is to a category of person that does not distinguish faithful Jews from non-faithful ones. You argue a connection to chapter 2 and appear to be saying that Paul must be talking about only unfaithful Jews. If you can make such a point, then you have indeed countered my example.

The fact that Paul refers to a mark that all Jews get - circumcision - suggest that he is now talking about Jews as that class of people who are marked out specifically by circumcision. Then in verse 2, it is equally clear that he is referring to the Jewish nation as a whole - it is not only faithless Jews who are given the oracles - it is all Jews. And if that were not enough, his statement of verse 3 "what if some (Jews) were without faith..." makes it clear that now - in verse 3, but not before - we are getting an identification of that subset of all Jews who are, in fact, faithless.

In light of such considerations, I suggest my point is sustained. In verse 1 and 2, we indeed have Paul clearly talking about a category of people in a manner independent of matters of faithfulness. I never claimed that all of chapter 3 was about Jews "in general", But I do not need to counter your assertion. And there are other examples as well. Do you want to me to give more?

 

[Drew]

Drew, from one of the very verses you quoted in Romans it says....
Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel: for it is the power of God unto salvation... (underlining mine) --- No gospel of salvation in the book of Romans? Why it begins with that very phrase!

Post NT Wright disciples have bent the gospel in the book of Romans out of shape to the point where they do not see that it exists within the book of Romans.

You are simply not reading this properly. What is the gospel? It is the power unto salvation. It is not salvation or the message about salvation. If anything it is the message about something that has the power to give salvation.

Reading 1:16 the way you do is like reading this phrase "I am not ashamed of "the good news about "X", for it is the power (or means) unto getting to New York" and claiming that the good news is about getting to New York. No it isn't! That's not how this sentence, structurally identical to 1:16, actually reads. The good news is about "X" - perhaps the news of a new airplane.

The gospel is news of something. Let's call it X. Whatever X is, X is the dynamus - the power - that brings salvation.

Does news of salvation bring salvation? Of course not.

But news that Jesus is raised from the dead and is lord does. And this is what Paul really means when he uses the word "gospel".

 

[mondar]

Drew, from one of the very verses you quoted in Romans it says....
Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel: for it is the power of God unto salvation... (underlining mine) --- No gospel of salvation in the book of Romans? Why it begins with that very phrase!

Post NT Wright disciples have bent the gospel in the book of Romans out of shape to the point where they do not see that it exists within the book of Romans.

You are simply not reading this properly. What is the gospel? It is the power unto salvation. It is not salvation or the message about salvation. If anything it is the message about something that has the power to give salvation.

Reading 1:16 the way you do is like reading this phrase "I am not ashamed of "the good news about "X", for it is the power (or means) unto getting to New York" and claiming that the good news is about getting to New York. No it isn't! That's not how this sentence, structurally identical to 1:16, actually reads. The good news is about "X" - perhaps the news of a new airplane.

The gospel is news of something. Let's call it X. Whatever X is, X is the dynamus - the power - that brings salvation.

Does news of salvation bring salvation? Of course not.

But news that Jesus is raised from the dead and is lord does. And this is what Paul really means when he uses the word "gospel".

Drew, your post is getting out in the fog a little here. I suspect you lost the train of thought and have forgotten why I said what I did above. Your original proposition was that the word "Gospel" in Romans does not necessarily relate to salvation. My point was simple, the word Gospel and the word salvation occur int he same phrase in the verse we are discussing here. I presented this verse to show that Romans is a book about the gospel of salvation.

Let me also add that Romans is a book that relates the doctrine of justification to salvation. Notice verse 17.

Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
Rom 1:17 For therein is revealed a righteousness of God from faith unto faith: as it is written, But the righteous shall live by faith.

In verse 17, Paul quotes Habakuk 2. The word he uses in "just." The just shall live by faith. This is the "Gospel of salvation" he was talking about in verse 16. It is what Romans is talking about.

 

[mondar]

In only 2 verses he will say.....
Rom 3:1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what is the profit of circumcision?
Rom 3:2 Much every way: first of all, that they were intrusted with the oracles of God.
Rom 3:3 For what if some were without faith? shall their want of faith make of none effect the faithfulness of God?

I do not see how what you are saying here counters my point. I make the rather self-evident point that the verse 1 reference to "the Jew" is to a category of person that does not distinguish faithful Jews from non-faithful ones. You argue a connection to chapter 2 and appear to be saying that Paul must be talking about only unfaithful Jews. If you can make such a point, then you have indeed countered my example.

The fact that Paul refers to a mark that all Jews get - circumcision - suggest that he is now talking about Jews as that class of people who are marked out specifically by circumcision. Then in verse 2, it is equally clear that he is referring to the Jewish nation as a whole - it is not only faithless Jews who are given the oracles - it is all Jews. And if that were not enough, his statement of verse 3 "what if some (Jews) were without faith..." makes it clear that now - in verse 3, but not before - we are getting an identification of that subset of all Jews who are, in fact, faithless.

In light of such considerations, I suggest my point is sustained. In verse 1 and 2, we indeed have Paul clearly talking about a category of people in a manner independent of matters of faithfulness. I never claimed that all of chapter 3 was about Jews "in general", But I do not need to counter your assertion. And there are other examples as well. Do you want to me to give more?

This is the same mistake you make in Romans 9. Paul is not merely talking about the category of Jews, he is only talking about Jews without faith. The point I made was that you present this "category of Jews" as though it has nothing to do with the requirement for justification... "faith." I had said that the issue is faith or no faith. Verse 3 explicitily talks about a people without faith.

This is some similarity with Chapter 9. Paul says "Not all Israel is of Israel." In both contexts the issue is primary issue is the faith or no faith of Israel. And Israel has both faith and non-faith.

 

[mondar]

Drew, a final comment. I am not sure I read all you said above. It is not at all brief. Nevertheless, I remember you said something I wanted to address. It had to do with Romans 9:9. Your thought was that all OT quotes in the NT must take into account the entire context of the OT, and that they must only reflect the same theological points that the OT material had.

I would disagree with this. I recommend a book by G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson "Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament." It is from Baker Books. It is expensive, but well worth it.

The point I am making here is that the NT writers did used OT in a theological way. This is not to mean that they spiritualized the text. An example of this would be Acts 15:16-17. The context of that OT quote has to do with the 2nd coming. James quotes it (recorded by Luke). The point James is making has nothing to do with the context, but the point that righteous Gentiles will seek the Lord. He is making a theological point that Gentiles are to be included in Gods grace, not claiming fulfillment of prophecy concerning the 2nd coming.

This has to do with Romans 9:9. You point to the fact that Paul must have in mind the prophetic fulfillment of the prediction about the 2 nations, and therefore he is not making a point about individual election in verse 11. While it is true that the Genesis passage is mainly about the prophetic fulfillment of the 2 nations, Paul is not talking about the Edomites in the passage. His point in 9:9 has to do with the principle in verse 6 "Not all Israel is of Israel." The point is about Esau not being elect but still being a son of Isaac. That is parallel to verse 6 where not all the sons of Jacob are Israel.

 

[Drew]

Drew, your post is getting out in the fog a little here. I suspect you lost the train of thought and have forgotten why I said what I did above. Your original proposition was that the word "Gospel" in Romans does not necessarily relate to salvation.

Please tell me where I said anything like this at all. I certainly did not intend to. There is a very strong link between the gospel and the fact of justification and salvation. My point has been that the term "gospel", for Paul, does not denote the news about justification by faith, but rather the news that Jesus is the Davidic Messiah who has been constituted as Lord of the Universe in virtue of being raised from the dead. But I do not deny that "justification by faith" is true - in the qualified sense that I have described in many other posts - and I certainly do not deny that it is "good news", and I certainly do not deny that the "gospel" stands in an important relation to the news about justification by faith.

To repeat - I do not believe I have ever denied a connection between the "gospel" and justification / salvation by faith. I have instead been arguing that Paul does not use the word "gospel" to refer to the news about justification / salvation by faith.

 

[Drew]

presented this verse to show that Romans is a book about the gospel of salvation.

Let me also add that Romans is a book that relates the doctrine of justification to salvation. Notice verse 17.

Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
Rom 1:17 For therein is revealed a righteousness of God from faith unto faith: as it is written, But the righteous shall live by faith.

In verse 17, Paul quotes Habakuk 2. The word he uses in "just." The just shall live by faith. This is the "Gospel of salvation" he was talking about in verse 16. It is what Romans is talking about.

No one, least of all me, is denying, that Paul is concerned with the news about salvation and its connection to what "the gospel" really is for Paul, the news that Jesus is the Davidic Messiah and has been constituted as the Lord of the universe in virtue of being raised from the dead.

Verse 17, of course, is perfectly consistent with the view I am advocating, If the gospel is indeed what I am claiming, verse 17 can be rendered thus:

For therein, that is in the news that Jesus is the Davidic Messiah and has been constituted as the Lord of the universe in virtue of being raised from the dead, is revealed a righteousness of God from faith unto faith: as it is written, But the righteous shall live by faith

God's righteousness is revealed through the fact that He has acted to send Jesus and raise Him from the dead as Lord of the Universe. And His faithfulness in doing means that we can, through faith be justified.

You do not engage my argument about 1:16,17 and you have not engaged my argument about 1 Corinthians 15, and I am not going to repeat arguments My argument shows that a proper analysis of what Paul says in 1:16,17, and in 1 Corinthians 15 shows that Paul cannot be using the word "gospel" to denote news about a system of salvation. It is news about something else.

 

[Drew]

This is the same mistake you make in Romans 9. Paul is not merely talking about the category of Jews, he is only talking about Jews without faith.
The point I made was that you present this "category of Jews" as though it has nothing to do with the requirement for justification... "faith." I had said that the issue is faith or no faith. Verse 3 explicitily talks about a people without faith.

I have addressed this already, including your point about Romans 3. I see no value in repeating what I have already addressed. Let the arguments be judged on their merits - no point in either of us saying the same thing over and over again in different words.

This is some similarity with Chapter 9. Paul says "Not all Israel is of Israel." In both contexts the issue is primary issue is the faith or no faith of Israel. And Israel has both faith and non-faith.

I disagree with you here, and believe I have already addressed this in this thread. But, I will have more to say about it in subsequent posts.

 

[Drew]

Drew, a final comment. I am not sure I read all you said above. It is not at all brief. Nevertheless, I remember you said something I wanted to address. It had to do with Romans 9:9. Your thought was that all OT quotes in the NT must take into account the entire context of the OT, and that they must only reflect the same theological points that the OT material had.

I would disagree with this.

Of course, I never said that "OT quotes in the NT must take into account the entire context of the OT. But that's an aside.

If the context immediately surrounding a quoted text is not to be brought forward when that text is used, can you then explain to us all why Jesus' statement about "coming on the clouds" enraged Caiaphus if He (Jesus) was not "bringing the Daniel 7 context" along - a context which has the son of man figure enthroned next to God and ruling over the world? Without allowing the context of Daniel 7 to inform Jesus' use of this phrase, all we have is a bald statement about "floating in the sky". Why would this enrage Caiaphus? Clearly, Jesus intends the Messianic overtones of the context that surrounds that phrase in Daniel 7 to be ringing around in Caiaphus' mind.

Besides, there are many, many more examples that show when a phrase is "borrowed" or quoted from the Old Testament, the intent is to invoke the "larger context" of the Old Testament material from which the text is quoted.