Brennon's Thoughts: Romans 9: Updating my Exegesis

Image via Wikipedia

Image via Wikipedia

Here is a great post! I've been wanting to see a verse-by-verse exegesis of Romans 9 from an Arminian perspective. My brother-in-Christ, Brennon, has done exactly that on his blog. I thought that it would be interesting to discuss his points-by-point in hopes that I can clear up any misconceptions I may have. I've also taken the liberty of reproducing each verse in my post. The Bible verses from Romans 9 are in red, Brannon's comments are in black, and my comments are in blue.

¹I speak the truth in Christ—I am not lying, my conscience confirms it in the Holy Spirit— ²I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. ³For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race,

1-3: Paul is Jewish and He is writing here about his Jewish brethren. We need to keep this important fact in mind, as it is the most important thing to remember in order to properly understand this passage. One good thing to ask ourselves here is why Paul would be so upset over those who are not accepting Christ if they had been predestined that way? Why, if God is glorified through their reprobation, is Paul so distraught? Even to the point he would give his own salvation so they may be saved! Isn’t Paul's main concern the glory of God? I thought God would be glorified in this!? Why would Paul care so much about those God has chosen to reprobate out of His own sovereign decree?

I agree with Brennon's point that Romans 9 is attempting to address the reasons why Jews are rejecting the message. I would answer Brennon's question as to why Paul would be so grieved  that there were Jews rejecting the message by pointing out that all Christians should feel something at the thought of unrepentent sinners going hell. I know  Brennon does not like it either. However, are they going to hell because of their own choice as Brennon is suggesting..as if they could have chosen otherwise on their own? I think another question that must be asked is does it make sense that God would attempt to save people and they still end up in hell? Is it possible for God to move on a person and they are able to disobey?

⁴the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. ⁵Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.

4-5: This is the context of Romans 9. Paul is writing about people groups. Paul has his hypothetical questioner wonder why all these promises to the Jews, especially the promise of the Messiah, were being ignored by the Jews? Has God somehow failed in His choice of the Jewish people? Paul argues throughout Romans that salvation is based on faith and not by works. When he comes to Romans 9-11, Paul is dealing now with the anticipated Jewish contention that God has rejected His people whom He chose, and even through whom Christ came. We don’t think about it much today because we are so far separated from that line of thinking, but this is the context in which Paul wrote.

 I agree with Brennon here too for the most part. Paul is going to prove the the disbelief of the Jews does not mean that God changed His mind or failed to do as He intended. I don't think that he is talking about people groups as a whole, just the Jews in particular.

 ⁶It is not as though God's word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel.

6: Paul addresses the misconception here that the Jews were automatically saved simply because they are Jews, and also the misconception that God somehow failed in choosing them as His people. He states, “But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect (failed in His choice of the Jews). For they are not all Israel who are of Israel.” They are not all Israel (the people of God) simply because they are of Israel (of Jewish descent). It is crucial to see that this is about corporate election! God has predestined that believers as a group (spiritual Israel) would be saved, and non-believers will not. God's election is not about national decent and birthright, as will be shown with the examples of the patriarchs and their children, but about faith in Him.

In the Old Testament, God chose the Jews for a purpose. They were tasked with carrying the Law of God. God was revealing Himself to the world and they were tasked with recording that revelation. They kept the temple sacrifices and the Passover which all pointed to Jesus Christ. They were not saved simply because they were Jews. They were saved the same way as we are, as shown in Genesis 15:6 where Abrahams FAITH was accounted to him as righteousness (Christ’s future sacrifice paid for the salvation of Abraham and all who had faith in God in the Old Testament). Also, people from outside the Jewish nation came to faith in God, and God looked at Christ’s sacrifice instead of their sin.

I think the text is really clear that those who believe are saved and those who try to just keep the laws are not justified. But I think it's a little hasty to bring up "corporate election" because. we should look at the examples Paul gives to illustrate his point.

⁷Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham's children. On the contrary, "It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned." ⁸In other words, it is not the natural children who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring. ⁹For this was how the promise was stated: "At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son."

  

7-9: God chose Isaac to be the heir of Abraham, the heir that would carry on the Jewish race. It wasn’t due to who Isaac was; it was God’s sovereign choice in choosing Isaac to do this, for His own reasons. It wasn’t simply enough to be Abraham’s son, for Ishmael was also his son. Isaac was the child of promise. God supernaturally caused Sarah to give birth to him, and chose him as the specific person to carry on the line of the Jews, even though Ishmael was the firstborn. However, this is not speaking of Isaac being unconditionally elected unto salvation and Ishmael being reprobated. If you remember correctly, God had mercy on Ishmael.

You know, I have never heard a Calvinist argue that Ishmael was reprobated. And again there is no disagreement here concerning the fact that Isaac was chosen over Ismael  to show that it was God's choice not just because Isaac was Abraham's son and that it was God's choice not because of anything Isaac or Ismael did. Interestingly, Paul used the example of how God acted in the lives of two men to prove his point. 

  ¹⁰Not only that, but Rebekah's children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. ¹¹Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God's purpose in election might stand:

10-11: Here it is essential to know a little cultural context here. Rabbis at this time taught that God had chosen Israel because of the righteousness of the patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac, and other ancient Jewish fathers). Paul is refuting that! It wasn’t because of the things they did (because they were chosen before birth); it was because of the sovereign choice of God that He chose them as the ones to carry on the lineage of Israel.

 Definitely, Paul is using the lives of Jacob and Esau to further his point that it was God who chose whom were included in the promise and who wasn't.

12-13: Improperly understood, this could have massive repercussions on your interpretation of the rest of the Bible. Is God telling Rebecca while her children were still in the womb that He hates one of them!? God hated a baby!? How does that fit the rest of scripture? First off, Paul is quoting Genesis 25:23. It says, “two NATIONS are in your womb. Two peoples shall be separated from your body; One people shall be stronger than the other, And the older shall serve the younger.’” Remember what I've been saying? This is a prophecy about God choosing a nation to reveal Himself through. This is not about the boys themselves. Esau became the father of the Edomites. Jacob was renamed Israel and the nation of Israel descended from him. This is about Israel being a stronger nation than Edom, not about Esau literally serving Jacob. We see later on that Esau never actually served Jacob, they were reconciled, and I think they are both in heaven today. This is also not about individual election unto salvation. It’s about the sovereign choice of God of a nation to reveal Himself through.

But what about, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.”? This is from Malachi 1, which was written 1600 years after the passage from Genesis. Let’s examine it. Notice God is speaking to the nation of Israel.

2 “I have loved you,” says the LORD. “Yet you say, ‘In what way have You loved us?’ Was not Esau Jacob’s brother?” Says the LORD. “Yet Jacob I have loved; 3 But Esau I have hated, And laid waste his mountains and his heritage For the jackals of the wilderness.” 4 Even though Edom has said, “We have been impoverished, But we will return and build the desolate places,” Thus says the LORD of hosts: “ They may build, but I will throw down;

This entire passage is also about the nations, not the boys. They would have died over 1400 years prior to this. Paul is using these passages to make his point about corporate election. God chose Israel to bless, not Edom. The boys are simply the figureheads of these nations.

Also, when the words “Love-hate” are used as they are here, hated is being used as an idiom (the Hebrews loved using these). It is used opposite to love to express a lesser degree of love, not literal hatred. You can see a similar usage in Genesis 29:30. Jesus uses the same idiom in Luke 14:26. We’re not actually supposed to hate our parents, but compared to our love for God, the love for our parents is like hate.

So instead of teaching that God hated a baby before he had done anything, this passage actually teaches that God chose specific nations for specific things. That is a huge difference.

Again, I have never heard a Calvinist say that God hated Esau the way He hates sin. And I would interpret "
"Esau I hated" the same way Brennon has done here. However, I disagree that we can jump to corporate election..I think the key is the verse 11 "Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God's purpose in election might stand"  because Paul says why God did it. To illustrate the nature of election - God doing what He wants when He wants and how He wants. Bringing in the point that Esau and Jacob both became nations, Edom and Israel  respectively, I think even more perfectly shows how in control God really is. Think of the number of decisions people had to make - both Edomites and Israelites - over many centuries so that things turned out the way God said it would.

  ¹⁴What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! ¹⁵For he says to Moses,
   "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
      and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." ¹⁶It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy.

14-16: What about this? Was God unrighteous when He chose Jacob over Esau? The Jews at this time would have thought so. Esau was the eldest and that meant that the birthright of Isaac was naturally his. But God chose Jacob to be the one to carry on the line of Israel. Paul asserts that of course God is not unrighteous in this decision.

In verse 15 Paul is citing Exodus 33:19. Let’s remember that Paul is a Jewish Rabbi. Jews memorized large portions of the Old Testament. He had an amazing command of knowledge of these ancient texts. Would he rip the text out of context in order to prove a point about individual unconditional election? No! The context here is not about who goes to heaven and who does not. In context, Moses has asked God to show him His glory. God says it is because of His mercy that He has decided to show Himself to Moses, not due to anything Moses did. So Paul’s point is God does not owe us mercy based on what we do (will or run). The basis of God’s choice to save people is not on the people’s conduct, but on His compassion. The “IT” in verse 16 is not individual salvation; the “IT” refers to God’s choice of what to predicate His salvation on: Corporate election. Individual unconditional election has not appeared in this section.

I'm not sure why we would assume that if God could do this with nations that he does not do it with individuals? In order for God to do it on a corporate scale means turning and directing the will of many people...so teaching that God does not do anything against human free will goes out the window. I agree that the verses are definitely saying that election is based on God's will and desire and nothing to do with the properties of those being elected. I mean you can't elect yourself to something and still call it "election". "Fair" is whatever God says it is as far as I am concerned. I think that Paul is really pointing out that this is how God is and deals with his creation. It's His reality. We just live in it...on His terms.

¹⁷For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."¹⁸Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden. 

17-18: Is this speaking of eternal salvation? If it is, it is terrible! Are there people whom God hardened, leaving them nothing they can do about it? Has God chosen them for destruction? Certainly God has the power to do this, but does this sound like the God of the Bible? Ezekiel 33:11 says, “‘As I live,’ says the Lord GOD, ‘I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live.’” 2 Peter 3:9 says, “The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.” And 1 Timothy 2:4 says,“[God] desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” This is what God wants. He wants everyone to be saved because He loves us. But He allows us to reject His call.

I see nothing here about God hating Pharoah - only that God had a purpose to bring forth and He chose to build Pharoah up knowing that He would knock Him down. IT doesn't say that God enjoyed it...only that God did it.

Concerning Pharaoh and Moses and God hardening Pharaoh’s heart, we must remember that Pharaoh was never a believer and had already hardened his heart toward God. God in displaying His grace to Pharaoh was the occasion for Pharaoh to harden his heart. Much like we say prison hardens a criminal, we know it is actually the criminal hardening himself; Pharaoh likewise was hardened because of God’s grace. Also the Hebrew word for “harden” is more often translated “to give strength, to fortify.” So in Exodus 14:17, God may have only strengthened the resolve of what the Egyptians had already chosen to do. God never decided to send Pharaoh to hell based on an arbitrary decree. Pharaoh went to hell because of his sins.

So how does this example apply here? God shows mercy to who He wants to show mercy. By sending Moses to pharaoh, God displayed His mercy. By this act, God was the cause of Pharaoh's heart-hardening. God knew pharaoh would harden His heart, and God used this to display His own glory and power in bringing the Israelites out of Egypt. He chose to harden pharaoh to display His glory, but it was based on what He knew pharaoh would do.

This is an often used interpretation. The thing is that God said that he would harden Pharaoh's heart before Moses ever appeared before Pharaoh. See Exodus 4:12. Also that before regeneration, we all harden our hearts against God. God has to replace our hearts of stone with hearts of flesh.This is an example of one who was destined for reprobation. Need another example? Judas Iscariot.

 ¹⁹One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" ²⁰But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' " ²¹Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?
 ²²What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? ²³What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory—

19-23: The hypothetical questioner asks, "why does God still find fault?" To properly read this, we must understand what is being asked here. The question is not, "why Pharaoh or the Jews cannot come to God in faith?"; the question is, "why is fault being found if they are accomplishing the purpose of God?". The hypothetical questioner asks why God is still angry if God's glory is shown when His grace causes someone to harden their heart, why does He still hold those people culpable for their hard hearts? Paul dismisses this silly question. If God wants to save one vessel according to faith and use those who don't have faith to accomplish His purpose in spite of their unbelief, that is His sovereign prerogative. He alludes to another passage in the Old Testament in Jeremiah 18:3-11. The potter is God and the clay is the nation of Israel. What does this passage say about who God destroys?

8 if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it. 9 And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it, 10 if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will relent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it.

So, the point seems to be if the nation turns from it's evil, God will spare it. But if it doesn't, God will destroy it. This example shows again that Paul is speaking of corporate election of believers. God has chosen to mold from the same lump (Israel) vessels for common use and those for honorable. Those who have turned from their evil ways in faith to Jesus are the "vessles of mercy", those who have not are the "vessels of wrath".

I'm not sure why Brennon brings up faith because faith had nothing to do with God choosing Isaac over Ismael, or Jacob over Esau, or Pharaoh for destruction. How much say does the pot have to the Potter of what it will be used for? Nothing. There is nothing about the pot itself that makes it honorable or common aside from the purpose of the Potter who made it. This is why I don't really agree with the thought that "vessels of mercy" obtain mercy based on their own choice..IT is a gift from God. If Paul only meant to talk about Nations why did he use Pharaoh and not Egypt as his example of reprobation and destruction?

So as God chose the people of Israel as His people, He now chooses believers (spiritual Israel) as His people that He will save. On the other hand, God prepares those who reject Him for an eternal punishment. The translation of the words, “What if,” is a little misleading. Paul is not asking a hypothetical question. He is making an assertion. Notice that God does not display His wrath hurriedly. He endures the vessels of wrath with much patience. The fact is we were all vessels of wrath at one time, until we came to Jesus by faith.

How can God choose "spirtual Israel" without decreeing who is in that number. By default if God does nothing, none of us is in that number - all reject God - all vessel of wrath until God applies His mercy.

²⁴even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?

24: God calls people to be a part of His spiritual kingdom not only from the Jews, but also from the Gentiles. In the early church many were excluding gentiles because they weren’t Jews. The apostles had to deal with this, among many other issues they dealt with.

Yes, God calls people. They don't join the kingdom until God calls them.

25As he says in Hosea:
   "I will call them 'my people' who are not my people;
      and I will call her 'my loved one' who is not my loved one," ²⁶and,
   "It will happen that in the very place where it was said to them,
      'You are not my people,'
   they will be called 'sons of the living God.' "

 ²⁷Isaiah cries out concerning Israel:
   "Though the number of the Israelites be like the sand by the sea,
      only the remnant will be saved.
 ²⁸For the Lord will carry out
      his sentence on earth with speed and finality."

 ²⁹It is just as Isaiah said previously:
   "Unless the Lord Almighty
      had left us descendants,
   we would have become like Sodom,
      we would have been like Gomorrah."

25-29: Paul quotes the Old Testament to support this point (that He elects those who believe) and to tell what the ramifications of Israel’s rejection of God are.

How do they believe? Paul in no way says that it is possible to choose to believe without God. He only writes that those who believe will be saved.

³⁰What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; ³¹but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. ³²Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the "stumbling stone." ³³As it is written:
   "See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble
      and a rock that makes them fall,
   and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame."

30-33: This is the real kicker. Verse 30 is Paul’s summary of all He had just said. Paul starts by saying, "What shall we say then?" which signals he is about to summarize his whole point. Paul's ultimate point, therefore, is gentiles who have not pursued righteousness, as the Jews had, attained righteousness by FAITH. Whatever else Romans 9 means; there is certainly no reason to read a double predestenarian viewpoint into it, especially in light of verses 30-33.

I agree that  double predestination makes not since because we are all destined for hell by default. Believers are saved out of damnation so there is only on predestination not two. In addition, There was a comment on this post that made it seem like that Calvinism rises and falls on this chapter, but it doesn't. This passage is great for understanding the nature of election but there are several other scriptures that convince me that the elect are chosen by God. Examples:

John 6:44

Romans 8:28-30

Ephesians 1:3-14

Acts 13:48

I posted this video earlier, but I think that James White did a great job on the exegeses of Romans 9.

Brennon's Thoughts: Romans 9: Updating my Exegesis