Vessels of Destruction - Take 2

[smaller]

Generally a thorn represents a false teacher. Perhaps a false teacher was given to Paul to harass him. I say that because Paul calls it a messenger of Satan.

Let's be frank here. Paul had EVIL PRESENT with him. IF we see that Paul had a DEVIL then that presence of EVIL was in fact DEMONIC and NOT PAUL. And no, it was not 'some other person,' but a messenger of Satan upon PAUL's flesh which more than likely included HIS MIND.

Understanding the workings of Satan the FIRST BLINDNESS that Satan brings to the believer is this: THIS DOES NOT HAPPEN IN AND TO ME.

That is the deception of SATAN in operation IN that persons MIND. The PRIDE that Satan brings does NOT ALLOW that TRUTH to be personally accepted.

Many will say, YES, Satan does TEMPT me in mind, but they just can't seem to accept the fact that this places SATAN in their MIND.

There's another reason to think Paul was being harassed by a false teacher. It's what Paul said earlier; he said he would continue to preach the gospel at no cost to undermine the false apostles who, he said, were servants of Satan disguised as servants of righteousness. 2 Cor. 11:12-15

I never blame the 'other guy' and exonerate my'self.' There are good reasons to hate ourSELF when we are truthful about the operations of SATAN within us.

Being a 'disciple' we must understand righteous hate is a personal matter of our present life and the reasons for this hate. (Luke 14:26) We are simply NOT ALONE in these matters. The other vessel is in fact WITHIN us all. The person who 'blames and accuses' the 'other people' is in fact being PAWNED by Satan in false self righteousness.

After saying that, he said he besought the Lord about it, that it should leave him.

But it could be Paul is saying he was suffering from some physical problem that made him weak or some desire of the flesh that wouldn't leave him. But then again he says, 'for the sake of Christ, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities.' Certainly Paul suffered alot.

I am not much apt in making excuses to minimize the workings of THE DEVIL in Paul or in ANY. If Paul had EVIL PRESENT and A DEVIL that speaks volumes to the facts of any of the balance of us.

Let's suppose Paul recognized that he was not perfect in some way. This thorn kept reminding him that he was weak. It kept him from being too elated by the abundance of revelations.

Paul, in 1 Cor. 15 outright states that we are in fact planted in DISHONOUR, weakness and corruption. If DISHONOUR is what we are sown or planted into, then the VESSEL of dishonour is surely EVIL PRESENT and INDWELLING SIN in our minds and bodies and that working is in fact OF THE DEVIL. Believers do not like to HEAR THIS FACT, but it was a fact for Paul, and is so for us all.

Sin transpires in ALL in thought, word and deed and THAT SIN is in fact connected to THE DEVIL in 1 John 3:8.

Anyways there's nothing there about two vessels in Paul.

Whatever Mark. IF you cannot see PAUL and THE MESSENGER OF SATAN upon Paul, you will never see the realities of Romans 9's TWO VESSELS.

s

 

[Drew]

You’re saying the law has something to do with hardening the heart. If I disagree, it doesn’t mean I have something to defend.

I believe you made the statement that the Law could not be a means of hardening. In a fair "debate", you cannot simply claim something is the case - you need to make a case for it.

I could say what Paul said, for example, ‘God hardens the heart‘. Did God harden Pharaoh’s heart by giving him the law? No. Pharaoh’s heart was not hardened by receiving the law of Moses.

But that is hardly an argument that the Law of Moses could not be another means by which God hardens hearts.

I could argue that the hardened heart is disobedient. The hardened heart is unrepentant. The hardened heart does not believe. The hardened heart does not understand.

All true - but, again, none of these things means that the Law of Moses cannot be the means by which a heart is hardened.

Incline your heart to understanding - Proverbs 2 The law is the word of God. The word falls on the heart. The word is stored in the heart. The law is holy and just and good. Did that which is good harden Israel? No.

I trust you realize that this is simply a claim. In proper debate, you cannot simply claim that the Law did not harden Israel.

To be fair, perhaps you are arguing that something good cannot harden Israel. Well, why not. Is chemotherapy good? Of course! But it can induce all manner of horrible suffering. The belief that the Law of Moses is essentially a good law does not mean that it cannot harden.

Is God good? Yes, of course. Does this "good" God harden? Yes, he clearly does:

What then? What Israel is seeking, it has not obtained, but those who were chosen obtained it, and the rest were hardened;
just as it is written,
"GOD GAVE THEM A SPIRIT OF STUPOR,
EYES TO SEE NOT AND EARS TO HEAR NOT,
DOWN TO THIS VERY DAY."

This very text from Romans 11 shows that a "good thing" - in this case God Himself, can indeed be a source of something that appears, at least in the short term, to be bad.

Besides, you need to deal with this statement from Paul:

The Law came in so that the transgression would increase;

Now I am fully aware that many people will bend Paul's statement into this:

The Law came in so that the transgression would be revealed;

Well, I am not willing to bend what Paul says. He says what he says - the Law was added to make transgression, yes, increase.

 

[Drew]

heh heh. You put your own holes in the position when admitting that God also hardened Gentiles, but that means JEWS ONLY.

I have been crystal clear about this and you are, yet again, misrepresenting what I have posted.

I repeatedly agreed that God hardened Gentiles. But I pointed out what should be clear to all: the fact that God hardened Gentiles in history for His purposes does not mean that He could not, and did not, undertake a specific hardening of Jews and Jews only during a specific interval of history and for a specific reason.

Let me try again: Consider this hypothetical scenario:

1. Between the years 1000 BC and 0 AD, God hardened 30,000 Gentiles for various different reasons.

2. Between those same years, God hardened 30,000 Jews for a single reason that is different from all the reasons behind the hardening of the 30,000 Gentiles.

Now, it is clear that this is possible. And it is equally clear that Paul is "allowed" to talk about hardening number 2 without necessarily also having to talk about hardening number 1.

You need to accept the following: The fact that God has hardened both Jews and Gentiles over the course of history does not mean that Paul is prohibited from addressing a specific hardening that targets Jews only.

 

[MarkT]

I believe you made the statement that the Law could not be a means of hardening. In a fair "debate", you cannot simply claim something is the case - you need to make a case for it.

You can't prove a negative Drew. That's a logical fallacy. You are claiming the law hardened Israel, so the burden is on you to prove it.

But that is hardly an argument that the Law of Moses could not be another means by which God hardens hearts.


All true - but, again, none of these things means that the Law of Moses cannot be the means by which a heart is hardened.


I trust you realize that this is simply a claim. In proper debate, you cannot simply claim that the Law did not harden Israel.

To be fair, perhaps you are arguing that something good cannot harden Israel. Well, why not. Is chemotherapy good? Of course! But it can induce all manner of horrible suffering. The belief that the Law of Moses is essentially a good law does not mean that it cannot harden.

Is God good? Yes, of course. Does this "good" God harden? Yes, he clearly does:

Well, some people will say destroying anything is not good, but destroying evil is good. So it depends on whose side you are on. The sons of the evil one will say God has no right. Objectively speaking, the law is good. It's bad for evil doers. It would be death for us if we were not set free from it. But we are set free. In Christ we are free.

God entrusted the Jews with the law, but they dealt treacherously with him. So knowing what was in their hearts (treachery), God hardened their hearts so that they would not perceive or understand. So God hardened their hearts for a good reason. He hardened the hearts of the evil doers, but he opened the eyes of the disciples.

Nowhere does it say the law hardened their heart.

Besides, you need to deal with this statement from Paul:

The Law came in so that the transgression would increase;

Now I am fully aware that many people will bend Paul's statement into this:

The Law came in so that the transgression would be revealed;

Well, I am not willing to bend what Paul says. He says what he says - the Law was added to make transgression, yes, increase.

20 Law came in, to increase the trespass; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, 21 so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

What does this have to do with what we are talking about?

Law came in to increase Adam's trespass. As I said before, Adam was given one commandment. Moses was given ten. That gives sin ten times the opportunity to work death in man. Let's put it this way, when you break a commandment, it is called a sin. Where there is one commandment, there is one sin (or one trespass). Where you have ten commandments, there are ten sins or trespasses. More rules equate to more sin. If there were a hundred rules, there would be a hundred sins. Sins would abound. That's what Paul is saying. And where there is more sin, there is more to forgive, and therefore more grace.

 

[Drew]

The Israelites were entrusted with the law; they were told not to make idols, for example, and they made idols. Did the law cause them to make idols?

You are assuming that the Law did not, in fact, cause them to make idols. If you can make the case, but fine. But as it stands, you simply state (by implication at least) that the Law did not play this role.

And the Jews who did not believe Christ, were they hardened by the law, or did they reject Jesus because with them the words of the prophet Isaiah were fulfilled? "'You shall indeed hear but never understand, and you shall indeed see but never perceive. 15 For this people's heart has grown dull, and their ears are heavy of hearing, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should perceive with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and turn for me to heal them."

Again, you simply appear to assume that the Law was not the means by which the people were transformed into the state described in this passage.

The heart has to do with understanding and belief. “And being aware of it, Jesus said to them, "Why do you discuss the fact that you have no bread? Do you not yet perceive or understand? Are your hearts hardened?” Mark 8:17 RSV Jesus didn’t say anything about the law hardening their hearts, only, “Do you not yet perceive or understand. Are your hearts hardened?”

This is hardly an argument against the notion that the Law of Moses functioned to harden Israel. What Jesus says here is entirely consistent with the proposal I am advancing, even if Jesus does provide a detailed treatment of the mechanism by which these people were hardened.

And Paul said,
For man believes with his heart and so is justified, and he confesses with his lips and so is saved. Romans 10:10 RSV

Again, nothing about the law hardening the heart.

You seem to assume that Paul will "say everything all the time". The fact that particular texts do not allude to the hardening effect of the Law does not mean that other texts do not make this case rather clearly.

 

[MarkT]

Romans 9 is consistent with the teaching we received, "And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven." Matthew 23:9 RSV

The Jews had their fathers: Abraham, Jacob, Issac. Obviously the Greeks had their fathers. The point is it doesn't matter how closely related people are. A man can have two sons. You can't get any closer than that. They might be twins. It doesn't matter. God can make one for beauty and one for menial use. We see it all the time - one son is successful, or what the world would call successful, and the other son is a bum.

God's children are called from the Jews first and also from the Greeks. God has a right to make sons for himself, to call forth sons from any father on earth, from any race, for he is our Father. So if you're a Jew, don't say Abraham is your father. It doesn't matter. It's God's calling that makes us his children.

The secondary issue, therefore, if race doesn't matter, is not who are the vessels of wrath made for destruction? It is why does God tolerate or endure the evil doers? Paul said it was to show his wrath, and to make known his power, in order to make known the riches of his glory for us, which means he gives us time to know him, to seek him, to find him - to grow in the knowledge of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord and Master.

 

[Drew]

You can't prove a negative Drew. That's a logical fallacy. You are claiming the law hardened Israel, so the burden is on you to prove it.

It wasn't me who claimed the Law could not harden it was you. So please, let's not turn this thing around. It is your responsibility to actually support this claim that the Law cannot be the means of hardening.

As for me making my case, I have already done so at several junctions, using texts like Romans 5:20, Romans 7:12-13, Romans 11, etc.

 

[Drew]

What does this have to do with what we are talking about?

Law came in to increase Adam's trespass.

No. When Paul refers to the "law" in Romans 5:20 he is, as elsewhere in Romans, referring to the Law of Moses, not any "law" given to Adam.

This is really quite clear:

Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned--

for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

I trust that I need not explain that the only sensible way to read this text is to read "law" as the Law of Moses. Otherwise the "nevertheless" statement saying that sin was in the world before Moses does not make sense.

 

[Drew]

How is it a leap? It's the same letter. It's the same person writing the letter. Is it because Ro. 9 is further from Ro. 2 than Ro. 8 that you think it's quite a leap? Too many pages to turn? Is that what you mean by quite a leap? Paul is writing to all God’s beloved in Rome.

You seem to think that you can assume that what Paul is writing about in Romans 9 is an elaboration of what he wrote in chapter 1. You cannot just assume this. And it is not a matter of "number of pages". You are taking the same line of thinking that smaller is taking - importing a context into Romans 9.

This is not an issue of "pages" or anything like that. In Romans 1:18-32, Paul is clearly talking about all mankind. In Romans 9, he is clearly talking about Israel - he opens the chapter with a lament about Israel, so why do you think he immediately forgets the "Israel lament" and reverts, without notice, to a treatment of all mankind, as in Romans 1?

The Gentiles are included in Romans 9 and Romans 9 is about election. He writes, "he endures the vessels of wrath to make known the riches of his glory for the vessels of mercy - even us whom he has called not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles.

I am, of course aware that Gentiles are mentioned in Romans 9. And I have never denied that the vessels of mercy include Gentiles. I would have to be insane to do so. But it is the identity of the vessels of destruction that is at issue in this thread. And it makes perfect sense to see them as hardened Jews.

As I have repeatedly pointed out. With a problem of a lost Israel clearly on the table, a story about how they got into that state because God hardened them fits perfectly.

I think there are a number of logical errors swirling around here - the fact that Paul speaks of Gentiles being members of the "vessels of mercy" category does not, repeat does not, logically necessitate that Gentiles are in the "vessels of destruction" category.

 

[Drew]

So if the saints are the vessels of mercy, then who are the vessels of wrath? You say the Jew. But according to Paul it is all those who suppress the truth.

Incorrect - Paul never says anything like this. Paul simply does not say anything that allows us to conclude that the vessels of wrath are all those who suppress the truth.

Paul might well say somewhere in his letters that people do suppress the truth. But he never uses the term "vessels of wrath" (or "vessels of destruction") to refer to such people.

The gospel is the power of God for everyone who has faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. It’s not a leap to say the vessels of wrath are those men who exchanged the truth about God for a lie.

It most certainly is a leap.

Why not say that the vessels of wrath are the people of Sodom and Gomorrah? Or the prophets of Baal? The very term "vessels of wrath" is inherently very broad - anybody who is subject to wrath might fill the bill. But where it is clear from context, as it is here where lost Jews are clearly the problem in view, the term can indeed be used to refer to a specific group.

This is not hard to understand. Imagine that the New Orleans Saints beat the Indianapolis Colts 52-0. It is easy to imagine a sportswriter using the term "vessels of wrath" as a cryptic way to refer to, yes, the players on the Indianapolis team. The term does not necessarily refer to any and all humans who are, in any sense at all, subject to wrath.

Context, context, context. The issue here is what has happened to Israel.

Can't you admit the possibility that Paul is talking about the ungodly and maybe Romans 9 is talking about election?

Of course I can entertain this possibility. But the evidence simply does not support it.

You said something about the sorry state of Israel. What do you mean by that?

I mean that Paul opens the chapter by lamenting the sad state of Israel. What strikes me as so odd is that so many in the reform tradition think that Paul is providing a general theology of election in Romans 9, when, in fact, the issue he lays on the table at the very beginning is that Israel is in a sad state.

You guys have Paul raising problem A (the sad state of Israel) and then giving a treatment of a general theology of election which has nothing to do with Israel any more than it has to do with people with big noses.

Are you talking about Paul's concern for his countrymen; that he wishes they would all be saved? But then he says, "not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel", to explain why some will be saved and some will not, and then he talks about God's purpose of election, and God's will. He even quotes Isaiah who says, “ Though the sons of Israel be as the sands of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved†Ro. 9:27

True, but I trust you realize that what Paul says here is entirely consistent with my hypothesis - I never said all Jews were hardened, just most of them.

 

[Drew]

Romans 9 is consistent with the teaching we received, "And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven." Matthew 23:9 RSV

The Jews had their fathers: Abraham, Jacob, Issac. Obviously the Greeks had their fathers. The point is it doesn't matter how closely related people are. A man can have two sons. You can't get any closer than that. They might be twins. It doesn't matter. God can make one for beauty and one for menial use. We see it all the time - one son is successful, or what the world would call successful, and the other son is a bum.

God's children are called from the Jews first and also from the Greeks. God has a right to make sons for himself, to call forth sons from any father on earth, from any race, for he is our Father. So if you're a Jew, don't say Abraham is your father. It doesn't matter. It's God's calling that makes us his children.

The secondary issue, therefore, if race doesn't matter, is not who are the vessels of wrath made for destruction? It is why does God tolerate or endure the evil doers? Paul said it was to show his wrath, and to make known his power, in order to make known the riches of his glory for us, which means he gives us time to know him, to seek him, to find him - to grow in the knowledge of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord and Master.

This is probably all true, but it is not what Paul is talking about in Romans 9. Or at least this is not the focus of Romans 9, which is that God was that the sad state of Israel is not a failure of the covenant plan after all. The nation of Israel has, strangely, served to bless the nations of the world through her being hardened to the benefit of all mankind.

Romans 9 through the first part of 10 is a re-telling of the history of Israel from Abraham to Paul's day. Do you want me to make the case? The fact that there is such a strong Israel focus shows that what Paul is saying here cannot be reduced to the broad generalities you describe above, even if they are otherwise true.

Remember: just because something is true does not mean that Paul is always talking about it.

 

[MarkT]

No. When Paul refers to the "law" in Romans 5:20 he is, as elsewhere in Romans, referring to the Law of Moses, not any "law" given to Adam.

This is really quite clear:

Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned--

for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

I trust that I need not explain that the only sensible way to read this text is to read "law" as the Law of Moses. Otherwise the "nevertheless" statement saying that sin was in the world before Moses does not make sense.

I didn't say Paul was refering to any other law. I said Adam trespassed. The law of Moses came in to increase the trespass.

 

[MarkT]

It wasn't me who claimed the Law could not harden it was you. So please, let's not turn this thing around. It is your responsibility to actually support this claim that the Law cannot be the means of hardening.

As for me making my case, I have already done so at several junctions, using texts like Romans 5:20, Romans 7:12-13, Romans 11, etc.

It's just common sense. No law has the effect of hardening. You yourself know it is wrong to steal. Does the law affect your understanding of the word of God? Does it make you reject Jesus? I can't see how. In fact I would say it is helpful to know the law. If I didn't know the law, I would be ignorant. I wouldn't understand what Jesus was talking about when he said, "Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets" So the knowledge of the law helps us understand. But to say the law of Moses hardened the Jews is absurd. If you want to propose a mechanism at least be rational. I agree the Jews were hardened, but the law didn't do it.

 

[Free]

I agree the Jews were hardened, but the law didn't do it.

Then what did?

 

[MarkT]

You seem to think that you can assume that what Paul is writing about in Romans 9 is an elaboration of what he wrote in chapter 1. You cannot just assume this. And it is not a matter of "number of pages". You are taking the same line of thinking that smaller is taking - importing a context into Romans 9.

No. I don't think Paul said to himself, "I'm going to write Romans 1 and then Romans 9 but I can't refer to Romans 1. He doesn't say, 'Dear reader, remember what I said about the wrath of God and those who suppress the truth'. No. It's up to the reader to remember what he said about the wrath of God. It's one letter Drew. Don't let the numbering system create an illusion.

This is not an issue of "pages" or anything like that. In Romans 1:18-32, Paul is clearly talking about all mankind. In Romans 9, he is clearly talking about Israel - he opens the chapter with a lament about Israel, so why do you think he immediately forgets the "Israel lament" and reverts, without notice, to a treatment of all mankind, as in Romans 1?

Maybe, if it will help, we should renumber Romans 9 and start Romans 10 at Romans 9:16 or 19. You have to follow his train of thought. When he says, "So it depends not upon man's will or exertion, but upon God's mercy", at that point he is talking about all mankind. At that point he is talking about man and his Maker.

I am, of course aware that Gentiles are mentioned in Romans 9. And I have never denied that the vessels of mercy include Gentiles. I would have to be insane to do so. But it is the identity of the vessels of destruction that is at issue in this thread. And it makes perfect sense to see them as hardened Jews.

Then you're not following Paul's train of thought.

As I have repeatedly pointed out. With a problem of a lost Israel clearly on the table, a story about how they got into that state because God hardened them fits perfectly.

You sure have a way of characterizing things. LOL Paul was feeling great sorrow for his kinsmen by race, so great that he could wish that he was accursed for their sake, and you say a problem of a lost Israel is clealy on the table. What the heck are you talking about? I agree they were hardened. I agree branches were cut off so that the Gentiles could be grafted in. I agree God hardened them. But Paul does not say they can not be grafted back in again. In fact he says in 11:23 that they will be grafted back in if they do not persist in their disbelief. The vessels of wrath are a different story.

I think there are a number of logical errors swirling around here - the fact that Paul speaks of Gentiles being members of the "vessels of mercy" category does not, repeat does not, logically necessitate that Gentiles are in the "vessels of destruction" category.

The vessels of wrath are the ones who do not acknowledge God. By their wickedness they suppress the truth about God.

 

[Drew]

I didn't say Paul was refering to any other law. I said Adam trespassed. The law of Moses came in to increase the trespass.

Well, yes. And if law increases trespass it increases trespass.

Which is what I have been more or less saying all along - the Law functions to make Israel more sinful. It does not simply reveal sin (although it does that as well) it increases it.

Paul says something similar in 1 Corinthians 15 where he says that the power of sin is the law. We need to take him at his word - Paul is saying that sin (which Paul clearly sees as a power or force - not just a moral category into which actions are slotted - see Romans 7) - gains power from the law.

So, strange at it may seem, Paul is saying that the Law of Moses makes the person under it more sinful, not less.

 

[Drew]

It's just common sense. No law has the effect of hardening.

I politely suggest that "common sense" has very little to do with the entire Biblical story. Common sense would suggest that "the powers" won a great victory when they dispatched Jesus on the Cross. But the strange and wonderful truth is this: the powers were themselves defeated as Jesus died on the cross (Paul tells us this). This is hardly common sense.

Common sense tells us that the way to "get things done" is to acquire power and use it. This idea is all over the place in the modern world -we are told to

But to say the law of Moses hardened the Jews is absurd.

Well, then Paul is saying something absurd, because I did not write "the power of sin is the law" or "the law was added to make transgression increase" or "through the law, sin becomes utterly sinful". Paul wrote these things not me.

Let's talk about Romans 7. Here is more relevant material:

But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the Law sin is dead. I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died; and this commandment, which was to result in life, proved to result in death for me; for sin, taking an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good. Therefore did that which is good become a cause of death for for me?May it never be! Rather it was sin, in order that it might be shown to be sin by effecting my death through that which is good, so that through the commandment sin would become utterly sinful

Look at all the things Pauls says that support my argument:

1. He says that sin used the Law as the means to produce coveting in Paul. Is that common sense? No. But there it is.

2. He suggests that sin is dead apart from the law. An exaggeration to make his point perhaps, but this is not a statement that sin is simply revealed by the law - it is a statement that sin, which is clearly seen here by Paul as a power or force, is given energy / life through the law.

3. He says that the giving of the law resulted in his death! Common sense? No. But there it is.

4. He then repeats these ideas and concludes with this important distinction: it was not the law that "killed him" but sin, using the law that killed him. The giving of the law energized sin and resulted in his death. And we can easily say that the law hardened Paul.

Mark - I trust you realize you are simply not engaging the Romans 5 text, the Romans 7 text, and the 1 Corinthians 15 text, and are appealing simply to "common sense". All these texts tell us that the law has this strange effect of energizing sin.

Please address the texts. I suggest that what "seem rational" to you is not a good approach.

 

[smaller]

I have been crystal clear about this and you are, yet again, misrepresenting what I have posted.

I repeatedly agreed that God hardened Gentiles. But I pointed out what should be clear to all: the fact that God hardened Gentiles in history for His purposes does not mean that He could not, and did not, undertake a specific hardening of Jews and Jews only during a specific interval of history and for a specific reason.

Let me try again: Consider this hypothetical scenario:

1. Between the years 1000 BC and 0 AD, God hardened 30,000 Gentiles for various different reasons.

2. Between those same years, God hardened 30,000 Jews for a single reason that is different from all the reasons behind the hardening of the 30,000 Gentiles.

There may be numerous reasons for hardening Drew. The FACT IS that God DOES harden both JEW and GENTILE for HIS REASONS, not your sole impositions of what those 'reasons' are. Scriptures provide REASONS that you have not even brought to the table yet.

ONE DIVINE REASON that God BOUND 'all men' to disobedience is found in Romans 11:32.

Now, it is clear that this is possible. And it is equally clear that Paul is "allowed" to talk about hardening number 2 without necessarily also having to talk about hardening number 1.

I'm only glad you called it 'hypothetical.' In your case that means ONLY A GUESS. Paul 'summed up' this matter of ALL disobedience, HARDENING if you will, in Romans 11:32. Read it. Believe it IF you are allowed to or be HARDENED to it IF God has that in mind for YOU.

You need to accept the following: The fact that God has hardened both Jews and Gentiles over the course of history does not mean that Paul is prohibited from addressing a specific hardening that targets Jews only.

God is not a respecter of persons. He is an equal opportunity hardener.

enjoy!

smaller

 

[Drew]

No. I don't think Paul said to himself, "I'm going to write Romans 1 and then Romans 9 but I can't refer to Romans 1.

No one is saying that he can't refer to Romans 1. However, you appear to simply assume that this is what he is doing. You cannot just assume this, especially since Paul opens the chapter with a statement of a specific problem - the sad state of Israel. All the more reason to doubt that, after laying the Israel problem on the table, that he will go on to a make a case (e.g. in the potter metaphor) that has no Israel-specificity whatsoever.

It's one letter Drew. Don't let the numbering system create an illusion.

It should be clear that this is a non-issue. The numbering system is entirely irrelevant - as you say. My position in no way depends on the numbering system.

 

[smaller]

God CHOSE ISRAEL to show 'the condition of all mankind' as SINNERS and to bring HIS DELIVERER, Jesus Christ through their physical lineage.

What was shown IN Israel, the presence of INDWELLING SIN is a FACT for ALL MANKIND. God elected to SHOW THE FACTS in them and to deal with the presence of INDWELLING SIN in them and to put those accounts into WRITING, His Words.

The LAW as not to Israel alone, but to THE LAWLESS. The presence of INDWELLING SIN makes ALL of us, believer and unbeliever alike LAWLESS.

God ELECTED to arouse the power of LAWLESSNESS in the people of ISRAEL and to SCATTER that working that was in them throughout the face of the earth EXACTLY as He conveyed His Intentions with them here:

Gen. 49:
6 O my soul, come not thou into their secret; unto their assembly, mine honour, be not thou united: for in their anger they slew a man, and in their selfwill they digged down a wall.
7 Cursed be their anger, for it was fierce; and their wrath, for it was cruel: I will divide them in Jacob, and scatter them in Israel.


The PRESENCE of indwelling sin is LAWLESSNESS. ALL mankind HAVE IT. Israel was DRAWN OUT from among the NATIONS, the GENTILES to SHOW GODS POWER over that working, culminating in His Son, Jesus Christ.

The ENEMIES of mankind are IN mankind, all. Here is THAT ENEMY:

2 Corinthians 4:4
In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

ALL of us who now believe were ONCE THUSLY BLINDED, just as the UNbelieving JEWS were also BLINDED. By the 'god of this world.' That is, SATAN.

Satan is in fact THE LAWLESS ONE and the LAW aroused SATAN in the people of ISRAEL. Gods Words also aroused LAWLESSNESS to resist in Pharaoh of the O.T.

The fact is THE LAW works conversely to the presence of LAWLESSNESS, the presence of INDWELLING SIN and that working is OF SATAN and MAKES ALL PEOPLE SLAVES OF DARKNESS.

We were also once such BLINDED ENEMIES of the Gospel:

Romans 5:10
For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.


Colossians 1:21
And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled

The same working that worked in unbelieving JEWS worked in ALL OF US.

ding!

smaller