romans 9 study

[bleitzel]

Now mind you this is all in the context of why so many ethnic jews are not becoming believers in the Messiah, which appears to mean God's salvaic purpose for Israel has failed. Paul's argument is not all Israel [National] are Israel [Israel of God, children of promise] 9:6-8 Then He sets out to prove that supposition. For all men particularly in this case jews, have not been appointed to salvation through the Messiah. However the clay reference goes back to men in general, not nationality specifically, for in Adam was the representation of all nations and bloods acts 17:

SBG, you've slightly missed the context. The question isn't why are so many ethnic Jews not believeing in Christ and did that mean God's salvific purpose for Israel had failed. Rather, the issue Paul is dealing with is that for hundreds, if not thousands of years, the Jews had thought that they were chosen by God as special and the Gentiles were not. They thought God had granted them special blessings and had called them His family but had excluded the Gentiles all together. They misunderstood what salvation was all about. They had thought it was something that they inherited just by being a Jew by ethnicity. They never got it that it was through faith. It's a slight difference but probabaly makes a huge difference in the end because if we take your supposition we're still left with the idea that some are special and predestined while some are not. The very thing the Jews got wrong for so long.

That error needs to be corrected and Paul uses much of Romans leading up to chapter 9, as well as Galatians, Ephesians, Hebrews, and it's outlined thoroughly in Acts, to correct that error. Paul goes on in chapter 9 to very strongly upset his Jewish brethren in the hopes of shocking them back into reality. He's using their own holier-than-thou-because-I'm-one-of-God's-chosen routine and turning it back on their faces.

 

[bleitzel]

So in light of this seeming contradiction or failure in God's promises to the Fathers, is their really certainty for the believer ? This is the problem paul seeks to rectify in chapters 9-11.

No, SBG, the problem Paul is seeking to clarify is that the Jews can't believe that some new crazy people (the Apostles) are teaching that now the Gentiles have been let into God's family. It's an important difference. Let's discuss this one because if we get this wrong it taints how we see the rest of Romans and can lead to some very errant theology.

 

[Drew]

I am not knowledgable regarding Calvin or Arminian or whatever. Romans 9 clearly indicates God can make from the same clay anything He wants to. The point being that no one should think they're better than anyone else by their own efforts ambition, freewill, etc... .

I do not think this is Paul's point at all. Paul is making a specific argument about Israel and how God has been faithful to His covenant promise that the Jews will be a blessing for the world.

The Bible is not a disconnected "lessons" on individual human morality, even though this is how it gets treated. It is rather a single, complex, inter-connected narrative about God being at work in the world to redeem and restore it.

 

[savedbygrace57]

blei:

No, SBG

Yes, that is the problem.

 

[savedbygrace57]

blei:

SBG, you've slightly missed the context. The question isn't why are so many ethnic Jews not believeing in Christ and did that mean God's salvific purpose for Israel had failed.

Yes, thats the issue.

 

[savedbygrace57]

drew:

I do not think this is Paul's point at all. Paul is making a specific argument about Israel and how God has been faithful to His covenant promise that the Jews will be a blessing for the world.

The Jews were never a blessing to this world, and never will be. The blessing to the world was the seed of Abraham, which was Christ.

Gen 22:18

And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.


acts 3:25

Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.

Gal 3:

8And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.

 

[bleitzel]

blei:



Yes, that is the problem.

blei:



Yes, thats the issue.

Really? You just want to have a no-it-sn't/yes-it-is back and forth argument? What are we 5 years old?

 

[Drew]

drew:

The Jews were never a blessing to this world, and never will be.

In Romans 11, Paul makes it abundantly clear that the Jews were indeed a blessing to the world:

I say then, they did not stumble so as to fall, did they? (Q)May it never be! But by their transgression (R)salvation has come to the Gentiles,

By context, the "they" here are hardened Jews, and Paul is saying that through their hardening, salvation has come to the rest of humanity (Gentiles).

A rather clear statement that, indeed, the Jews have been a blessing to the world.

Not to mention these texts which make the same point:

15For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world,

Again, the "they" here are hardened Jew. What is the result of their rejecting the gospel? Answer: Reconciliation of the world.

30For just as you once were disobedient to God, but now have been shown mercy because of their disobedience,

Again, the "they" who disobey are Jews. Paul is repeating himself yet again - the disobedience of the Jews has salvific implications for the Gentile.

So I am not sure how you can claim that "the Jews were never a blessing to this world".

Paul rather clearly thinks otherwise.

The blessing to the world was the seed of Abraham, which was Christ.

No one is denying that Jesus is a blessing. But the fact that Jesus is a blessing, indeed the primary blessing, does not, of course, mean that the Jews cannot also serve a role in the redemptive plan of God.

In short, just because Jesus is a blessing does not mean Israel cannot be one as well.

 

[savedbygrace57]

drew:

In Romans 11, Paul makes it abundantly clear that the Jews were indeed a blessing to the world:

Jesus Christ the seed of Abraham is the Blessing to the world, I have showed you that.

gen 22:


18And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.

acts 3:25

Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed[Christ] shall all the kindreds of the earth[World] be blessed.

 

[Eventide]

Salvation is of the JEWS ! ! !

Salvation is of the JEWS ! ! !

 

[Drew]

drew:



Jesus Christ the seed of Abraham is the Blessing to the world, I have showed you that.

gen 22:


18And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.

acts 3:25

Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed[Christ] shall all the kindreds of the earth[World] be blessed.

I provided many clear Pauline statements from Romans 11 that show, beyond any doubt whatsoever, that Paul believes that the "bad" thing that happened to the nation of Israel turns out to be a blessing for the world.

Why have you ignored those statements? Why do you think Paul was mistaken?

Yes, Jesus was the fundamental means by which the covenant promise of Israel being a blessing was fulfilled. Jesus takes the role of Israel and, as you say, fulfilled the promise.

But this does not mean that the nation of Israel did not play its own role. And that this is so is clear from the statements that Paul makes in Romans 11.

At the end of the day, you need to explain why Paul would repreatedly make statements about the "unbelief" of Israel leading to salvation for the world, if this is not, in fact true.

 

[Eventide]

Salvation is of the JEWS !

SBG,

Don't you love how that salvation is of the JEWS !

 

[savedbygrace57]

Now as we continue the Romans 9 study, we see that Paul in explaining what seems to be a perplexity as to why the Jews are being excluded , most of them, as individuals of that nation. He explains that not all Jews from that nation are truly Jews [ spiritually] rom 2:



28For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:

29But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.



This is the beginning of unfolding a mystery that the ethnic jew did not know or understand..



So, Gods promises to the jews have not fell to the ground as rom 3:


1What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?

2Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

3For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?



The unbelief of the non elect national jews, does not nullify the Faithfulness of God to the true spiritual jew, of the election of grace. All the abrahamic promises are sure to all the seed..



No sir, God is being faithful to Israel but just not the Israel you think..



He shows a distinction in Isaac vs 7-9



Now he goes on to show another distinction and sovereign display, this time with Isaacs offspring, because he had just said that the covenant promises were in Isaac, but there is still more..



Isaacs offspring vs 10-13



10And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;

11(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth)

12It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.

13As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

Here Paul continues his thought and explanation of seemingly the Jews being left out overlooked in salvation.



Even though he showed a sovereign choice made by God with abraham's children, he shows one now with Isaacs's children, who unlike Ishmael, not having the same mother, some may think, well yeah, God choose Isaac because Ishmaels Mother was a heathen handmaid. but Paul dispels this thinking by showing Gods Sovereign choice of Individuals by the same parents, both Mother and Father..



This choice rested soley on God's "He whicheth calleth", and not on foreseen good or evil of the individuals..or works of the individuals..



This call proceeds from Gods eternal purpose alone..



2 tim 1:

9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,



Notice here in the above verse the phrase not according to our works and its relation to calling and in rom 9:11 and the phrase not of works and calling.



It should be plain to see, that calling is regards to salvation according to Gods eternal purpose. and election

 

[Eventide]

No sir, God is being faithful to Israel but just not the Israel you think..

It's too bad that most Calvinists are amillennial and have been taught that the church of God is Israel..

 

[Drew]

SBG:

Are you sticking with your position that "the Jews were never a blessing to the world", in direct contradiction to clear and repeated statements by Paul (in Romans 11) about the "stumble" or "transgression" of the Jews has had salvific implications for the rest of the world?

 

[Drew]

11(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth)

12It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.

13As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

Here Paul continues his thought and explanation of seemingly the Jews being left out overlooked in salvation.

Of course, Paul is in no way talking about salvation here.

In Romans 9, the eternal status of Jacob and Esau is nowhere on Paul's mind. The following text does not even address the issue of eternal destinies of Jacob or Esau. Paul tells us what they are "elected to" - that one will serve the other:

Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God's purpose in election might stand: 12not by works but by him who calls—she was told, "The older will serve the younger." 13Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.

The word election here means "choice". And what is the choice? Well what does Paul say? It is God's choice that the nation of Edom (Esau) will be dominated by the nation of Israel (Jacob). How do we know this? Paul tells us. He writes that Rebekah was told the purpose of God's choice. And he quotes from Genesis:


The LORD said to her,
"Two nations are in your womb,
and two peoples from within you will be separated;
one people will be stronger than the other,
and the older will serve the younger

And history shows that this came to pass - the Israelites did dominate the Edomites. And Paul knew this, of course.


Imagine Paul sitting there with his scribe, having just dictated "in order that God's purpose in election might stand". Where does this statement leave the reader? Obviously, it leaves the reader asking "Well, what is that purpose? What is God "choosing" or "selecting" Jacob and Esau for, exactly?"

So Paul answers this question: They were chosen / selected / elected to a state where "the older will serve the younger". Eternal destiny is nowhere in sight.

If Paul is addressing selection or election to eternal life or eternal loss in relation to Jacob and Esau, you have to believe that, after raising the topic of God’s purpose in election, Paul has suffered a sudden bout of amnesia and makes an entirely unannounced and immediate transition to a different subject altogether - the issue of something else that God selected these two for. That is, one serving the other.

What kind of a writer would do that ? First, state that God has one purpose in selection (election) for two people, and then spell out the details of an entirely different election?

 

[savedbygrace57]

God made a choice of Jacob over Esau to be the recipient of the covenantal love he displays in salvation..



No one can have a claim on Gods love in Christ Jesus, its only at Gods discretion. Esau was excluded from the covenant love of God, so scripture says he was hated.. If God loves you he saves you..



rev 1:



5And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,



Gods loving one and washing away their sins are one and the same. They are married and cannot be separated, what God has Joined together let no man put asunder, lest thou be found a liar..



He does this because he paid the price for our sins, so God is The father is pleased and pacified, now nothing is left but for the loved ones, the washed ones, the forgiven ones, is to hear the good news of it, thats the gospel..



People dont be fooled by the those teachers saying this passage is speaking of nations and not individuals, that cannot be further from the truth, Jacob and Esau first and foremost were individuals ,and this what was happening affected them individually..



now we see why God is oft times called the God Jacob



ps 145:



5Happy is he[ singular] that hath the God of Jacob for his help, whose hope is in the LORD his God:



ps 75:



9But I will declare for ever; I will sing praises to the God of Jacob.



david recognized a sovereign God of a particular people..



He was humble too there was a time he made this request :



ps 106:



4Remember me, O LORD, with the favour that thou bearest unto thy people: O visit me with thy salvation;

5That I may see the good of thy chosen, that I may rejoice in the gladness of thy nation, that I may

glory with thine inheritance.



1pet 2:



9But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;



David acknowledges that God is a God of a chosen people and wishes and desires the salvation for that people..



Now david had all the right to probably consider himself chosen, but probably because of sin he humbles himself and seeks salvation from the God of a chosen people..He truly represents an expression of what paul terms in titus 1:



1Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God's elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness;



Amen, David had the gift of the Faith of Gods elect..



So God has not forgotten His salvation promises to Israel, but they are being fulfilled to the true Israel of God..



God is Sovereign in whose the recipients of this salvation,



Isaac and not Ishmael , and jacob and not easu..

 

[savedbygrace57]

Which Jews ?

Salvation is of the JEWS ! ! !

Yes but which ones ? I believe its of these Jews paul speaks of rom 2:

28For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:

29But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

The jews that were merely Abraham's Children by the flesh, they were not the children of God, is plain here rom 9:

7Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

8That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

Now I am sure salvation is not of these [Jews] who are not even Children of God..

If you wanna believe that though, thats fine with me..

 

[Drew]

God made a choice of Jacob over Esau to be the recipient of the covenantal love he displays in salvation..

No. You are clearly adding to what Paul says, as do so many who want to see this texts as a proof-text for the doctrine of pre-destination.

But, as my preceding argument demonstrates, the specific selection God made was that the one would serve the other.

This is what Paul says the "election" was all about. So why are you changing it?

No one can have a claim on Gods love in Christ Jesus, its only at Gods discretion. Esau was excluded from the covenant love of God, so scripture says he was hated.. If God loves you he saves you..

No.

It is, of course, true that Paul has also said that he "hated" Esau and loved Jacob. Does this give us license to draw the further conclusion, over and above the "Edom serving Israel", that God was also pre-destining Esau to hell and Jacob to heaven?

Again, no. Look at what Paul is quoting from in verse 13:

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!'

A careful reading of this text shows that it in no way justifies reading "election to heaven" (for Jacob) and "election to hell" (for Esau).

Malachi is talking about the real world and how God works in history. Consistent with all we have seen thus far in respect to the Esau-Jacob matter - from Paul and from the author of Genesis - Malachi is talking about this present world - the cursing of the land of Edom.

If the issue were election to heaven or to hell, why does Malachi say:

You will see it with your own eyes and say, 'Great is the LORD -even beyond the borders of Israel

Could people be eyewitnesses to Esau going to hell and Jacob to heaven? Of course not.

Could people be eyewitnesses to Israel dominating Edom? Of course.

 

[Drew]

People dont be fooled by the those teachers saying this passage is speaking of nations and not individuals, that cannot be further from the truth, Jacob and Esau first and foremost were individuals ,and this what was happening affected them individually..

What people should be really warned about is what you are doing - going beyond what Paul is actually saying.

Yes, Jacob and Esau are individuals, but that does not require us to understand every statement about them as relating to their individuality. Consider this statement: "George Bush attacked Afghanistan in 2001". Did President Bush do this as an "individual"?

Of course not. So references to individuals can indeed be coded ways of refering to nations.

If my post suggested that there was no sense in which this text from Romans 9 has to do with Esau and Jacob as individuals, that was my mistake. I am certainly open to an individualistic reading as well as a national one.

But that there is indeed a nation-level reading is beyond question, based on the texts that Paul quotes, as per my previous post.

Either way, the issue on the table is "one serving the other" - whether individually and / or at the level of nations. To go beyond this and insist that Paul is making a statement about the eternal destinies of these two people is simply not sustained by the text itself.