Romans 9-11 is a greatly debated portion of scripture, but I don’t really see how. To me, it teaches clearly unconditional election. However, because it’s so clear, it is heavily attacked by the Arminian.
I tried to go through the passage as if someone was questioning what Paul was writing, and then paraphrasing what he said. Follow it in your Bible -
Take Romans 9 in context, and you will gloriously discover Paul was teaching a great many things, all designed to lead us into a hymn of praise to God for His sovereign election of people. His argument is basically,
I have told you of all God’s great grace and mercy (in the first 8 chapters), but maybe you don’t believe it, because to you it appears that God’s convenant promises with Israel have not been kept. (”not as though the word of God hath none effect” Rom 9:6)
He then begins in chapter 9 to prove that God HAS kept His covenant with Israel. But how?
Well, “they are not all Israel, which are of Israel” v6
What do you mean Paul?
Well, just because you are of the seed of Abraham, doesn’t mean you’re of the SPIRITUAL Israel, it just means you’re of the PHYSICAL Israel (v8). God chose Isaac for the seed, not Ishmael.
Why? Because Ishmael’s mother was a gentile?
No. I mean, look at Rebecca and Isaac (v10), they had two children, in the same womb, with the same priviledges, and here you see a profound picture that it’s all of God, not of man. God loves Jacob, and hates Esau!
But Paul, isn’t that because God foreknew that Esau would reject you, and Jacob would choose you?
No, it’s “not of works, but of HIM THAT CALLETH” (v11)
But isn’t that unrighteous of God?
NO WAY! (v14). Remember when Moses wanted to see God’s glory? God said, “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy…”. God was declaring, His ability to do what He pleases NO MATTER WHAT IT IS, in order to glorify Himself (v15). So you see, God shows mercy to people, when He wants, how He wants, and to whom He wants, irrespective of whatever anyone else wants (v16).
But I’m not convinced Paul.
Ok, remember Pharaoh? Remember how God hardened his heart? Why did He do that? So that “his name might be declared throughout all the earth” (v17). In other words, God does what He wants to glorify himself (v18).
Who can resist what God wants, and what God wills? (v19) Would you dare argue against God? Can the clay argue against the potter, and say this isn’t fair?(v20)
Doesn’t the potter have the power to make a vessel that will honour him (Jacob), and one that will dishonour him (Esau)?(v21)But that’s rediculous Paul, why would God do that?
Because, when God does this, it glorifies Him. He shows His glory in His patience to those that dishonour Him, and he glorifies Himself through the mercy he shows to those made for His honour. Without God’s wrath, God wouldn’t be able to show His glory in those who would experience mercy. (v22-23)
And I could go on…
Please consider these portions of God’s word carefully. Always remember, we are not designed to understand God, we are designed to glorify Him.
If you have any questions about the passage, I’ll try to answer them as faithfully as I can.
Along the same lines...
- The Faithfulness Of God
- Does Your Bible Teach a Gospel of Works?
- Do ALL Things Work Together For Good?
Added Commentary
By Randa Clay
on 21.07.07
Well put Armen - I especially like your statement
How could we as humans think we could fully understand an infinite God? We cannot apply human “standards” of fairness to God.
By pilgrim
on 21.07.07
Armen
Greetings brother! I am sure you know this, but in Romans 9-11, our Apostle Paul is refering to the mystery of Israel’s blindness, their partial hardening until the full number of Gentiles (ethnos or nations) come in to the place of blessing (”a people for His name”, Acts 15:14), how presently there is a believeing remnant among Israel (which is likened to the believing remnant of Eliyahu’s day), and that both the believing remnant of Israel and the those of the believing Gentiles have both the same Lord, and make up the mystery of the body and bride of Christ. After the fullness of the Gentiles come into the place of blessing, then all Israel will be saved. Paul wants us to not be ignorant of this mystery, nor to boast over the natural branches, Israel. They are the elect nation, the people whom God chose to bring forth His Christ, for assurdly, some people group and nation had to be chosen, and so He chose them. They are blessed on account of the Patriarchs, the promise given to Abraham and the covenants. Theirs is the law and the temple worship and from them is the geneology of ha-Mashiach proven.
Romans 9-11 cannot be separated out, it must be taken as a whole. My hope is that people would stand back from their ideologies and traditions and look to what the Apostles teach concerning the mysteries of God. Truly God is great and beyond man, but as Deu. 30:12-14, the word of faith is not in heaven nor below the earth, but very near to us, in our hearts. God has not witheld His plan from His servants, but has made it know just as He even says to Abraham:
“Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do, since Abraham will surely become a great and mighty nation, and in him all the nations of the earth will be blessed?” Gen. 18:17-18
By Scott
on 21.07.07
Excellent topic and treatment.
I am going to back pilgrim here. If, as we should all understand, we are indeed under a new covenant (i.e. Luke 22:20; Jeremiah 31:31) then Paul is talking about the entity formed therein. That entity is the church and is indeed distinct from the physical entity of Israel which Paul is careful to delineate.
By Armen
on 21.07.07
Randa - Thanks for stopping by. You’re exactly right. Our ‘fairness’ is modelled upon our cultural upbringing, which is a frail and faulty measure of what is ‘right’.
pilgrim - Yes, I’m well aware that Romans 9-11 is a portion which to try and ‘divide’ is difficult, but I just wanted to share what I had said.
I think Paul was also trying to remove any pride that there might be on either side (Jews or Gentiles). The Jews were proud of their heritage, and thought because they were a ‘chosen’ nation, that they all would be saved. But Paul gets rid of that notion in Rom 9:6.
But then Paul knew that there was a possibilty that the Gentiles would get proud, because they were accepting the Messiah that the Jews were rejecting. He addresses this in Rom 11, trying to humble them in reminding them that salvation has only been imparted to them, because of the blindness of the Jews (which God brought) (v10), and that their salvation is to be a means to an end, that is, that it might provoke jealousy in the Jews (v11), whereby eventually, in God’s time, they will come to accept Christ more fully than they do now (25-26).
However, what I’m not 100% sure about, is whether “Israel” in v26 means the nation, or converted Jews and Gentiles. I’m inclined to think the latter because of Paul’s given definition in Rom 9:6
By pilgrim
on 21.07.07
Armen
Thanks for the reply brother!
Israel IS the chosen nation, they were chosen to be the people through which God would bless the rest of the world. Through them is traced the ancestry of Christ. He had to be born from some nation, and He was born a Jew and is a Jew, from the tribe of Judah.
True, some from the people of Israel thought, and still do, that because they are the elect nation, then they automatically are ok. Just because they could trace their lineage and had circumcision, then they were saved. But the point is that that is not enough, individual salvation is not based on bloodlines and works, but faith alone. That is why all Israel is not Israel. If a Jew has faith in Messiah Jesus, then he is just like his father Abraham–one who has faith, for that was what Abraham was justified by, not by his circumcision. Therefore any Jew that has faith in Christ is of true Israel. They have become who they where made to become, a part of a priestly nation.
Israel is not the Church, but is included in the Church. Jews (Israel) and Gentiles (everyone else) who have faith in Jesus form the body of Christ. The Church is not a nation. Israel is a nation. Only if one spiritualizes the word “Israel” and take it out of it’s context, then yes you could say that “Israel” is something else. Our Americans the Church? Yes–but the Church is not simply all American. In the same way, the Body of Christ, the “called out ones”, are from every tribe, language, people and nation. This includes Israel.
What our Apostle Paul is speaking of in verse 26 is that the Jews who survive the Tribulation will all be saved when they repent of their rejection of Jesus and accept Him as Messiah. The unbelieving ones will die in the judgment to come, as well as the unbelieving Gentiles. Those who will believe of Israel, who escape to the “place prepared for her for a time, times and half a time”, they will be the ones who are saved, all Israel, for the rest die from judgment. They, with the resurrected Old Testament saints, will populate and inherit the Messianic Kingdom, the thousand year reign of Christ on earth, as well as the Church, who comes with Christ at His Second Coming.
The reason why contextual and literal understanding of Scripture and mainly dispensationalism can connect and explain many of these things is that it simply keeps a constant distinction between the elect nation Israel, and the “called out ones”, the Church, the body and bride of Christ. This is also why dispensationalism is attacked, because we still believe that God’s promises to Israel, all that are included in the Old Testament and specifically apply to their covenants, will be fulfilled through them and not the Church. Israel will always be, and even more so as the end nears, a dividing line among Christians.
This last part is my personal opinion–so I understand if people disagree–but just because dispensationalism is new, people think that that destroys it. But dispensationalism is not based on traditions, but the Word of God and it is actually still developing and being perfected. I believe that out of every system, dispensationalism at its core expresses and tries to understand the Word of God as a whole the best.
Grace and peace to everyone!
By Armen
on 21.07.07
Pilgrim - So are you saying that Paul’s words in Rom 9:6 are basically, not all people from the nation of Israel, are from the nation of Israel?
I know there is the nation of Israel, but what Paul is doing here, is saying that the real chosen one’s are those of who are born the children of promise.
Abraham’s children are reckoned “in Isaac” (9:7) What this means is that, it is not the natural children who are God’s, but children of the promise (v8). How was Isaac born? By the sovereign power of God. How are Christians born? By the sovereign power of God. Every Christian is an “Isaac” in his own way.
All genuine saints of God, are the “Israel of God” (Gal 6:16), and in Heb 8:8, it indicates that all who are in Christ are of the “House of Israel”.
Does the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob love the Jews? Yes. Does he have a plan for the Jews? Yes, it is the same plan he promised to Adam, the seed of the Woman, the same plan he promised to Abraham, “the Seed.” That seed is Christ. He is the Holy One of Israel.
I believe and hold that God has always had one people, and one redemptive plan, and that plan was always to include Jew and Gentile. The key to understanding scripture and God’s purposes, is to understand His covenant promises. As you are dispensational, you’re still looking for the day when God will fulfill His promises to Israel. Therefore, I’d be interested in knowing your interpretation of the following passages, as scripture appears to indicate that God has already fulfilled every promise He made to national Israel;
By Roman
on 21.07.07
Armen, you wrote to Pilgrim,
“I believe and hold that God has always had one people, and one redemptive plan, and that plan was always to include Jew and Gentile. The key to understanding scripture and God
By Armen
on 21.07.07
Roman
By pilgrim
on 21.07.07
Greetings again brother Armen!
I don’t think you’ve misinterpreted what I’ve said, I think that you have received or heard unknowingly pre- or misconceived teachings and have applied them to what I am saying, since I go by the title of a dispensationalist.
Let me be clear as possible. I don’t think that Gentiles who become Christians are “true Jews” or “true Israel”. I think that Jews who would receive ha-Mashiach Yeshua as such, become true or believing Israel, what Paul calls “the present-day remnant” and “the Israel of God”. Gentiles who believe are simply Gentile Christians. These two groups form a new body, the ekklesia, “the called out ones”, the Church, the body and bride of Messiah. Gentiles are no better than Jews in the body of Christ, and vice-versa. Yet Paul never says that their ethnical distinctions perish. He still calls himself not only a Hebrew of Hebrews, but also a Pharisee. Yet Christ is what matters.
I think that the “elect” that Paul is speaking of in Romans 9-11 is Israel, the nation, for he says that they are enemies to believers on account of the Gospel, but are loved because of “election” through the patriarchs and covenants. Israel is elect because Messiah had to be born through a certain people. If he was born from the Japanese nation, then Japan would be the elect nation. If He was born from the Indian people, then they would be the chosen nation. It is not so much that Israel is any better than other humans–what makes them special is that Christ comes from them. He makes them special nationally. It all follows logical progression of how God works. Israel is elect, theirs is the gospel first, then the Gentile. Jesus is first their Messiah. People have forgotten what Christ means. Christ is not Jesus’s last name! It’s His title which connects Him with Israel. Christ = Mashiach, Messiah. Whenever a person says “Jesus Christ” they are confessing His role and title as the Anointed Ruler, the King of Israel.
In the sermon on Pentecost, Peter makes it clear that Yeshua is to reign on the throne of David. Where is the throne of David? Jerusalem. Israel. Yet right now He is fulfilling the prophecy in the Psalms which Peter stated to the crowd. David says, “The LORD says to my Lord (YHWH says to my Adonai), Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.” David is speaking of his descendent, Jesus. David saw that, not only would his heir reign on his throne, God would not let Him see decay and would in turn seat Messiah at the right hand of God. So to sit at God
By Armen
on 21.07.07
Pilgrim - A bit late for a response, but here are my thoughts,
By Roman
on 21.07.07
Reading over your response to pilgrim, this thought came to me.
I don’t know about the nation of Israel being “elect in two ways” as you put it. After I read your explanation, the words of Jesus to the Samaritan woman Photin
By Armen
on 21.07.07
Roman
By Roman
on 21.07.07
Actually, as to bible commentators, I’m not thinking of the ones you refer to, I guess, who are known to be bible-believers, but to those moderns that like to tear the Word apart on linguistic and (pseudo-) historical grounds. The church fathers are united on many points of faith (that’s what constitutes “orthodoxy”), but on speculative points (not essential to saving faith, but just “knowledge”) they can differ among themselves quite widely.
I’d be careful quoting from Augustine of Hippo, as he is not in line with most of the Church fathers on many points, and it was his influence, in fact, that threw the Western Church into a nose dive from which it has never recovered. He was a Manichaean convert, and much of his writing has the taint of their dualism and other gnostic influences. I’m not saying he’s all bad, but like studying Origen, you have to read Augustine carefully and just pass over the things he says that are in error, taking in only the good things.
By Armen
on 21.07.07
Roman
By Roman
on 21.07.07
What I said about Augustine actually comes from the Orthodox Church in its various publications about the bible and the Church fathers, as well as what I have heard from modern Orthodox elders.
I don’t read “modern, speculative scholars.”
I read Confessions at the beginning of my life in Christ, in fact, reading it was one of the last pushes to get me to accept the Lord. I also read Augustine’s City of God and his Enchiridion (Christian handbook), all of which were very instructive. Only as I began to grow up spiritually and discovered the other Church fathers and studied more and more of the Word of God, did I come to the point where I no longer refer to Augustine. I know that his writings had a great influence on one of my faith heroes, Martin Luther, but I know that no one and nothing is infallible but God Himself, and nothing inerrant but His Word. So I am able to hang out with all kinds of Christians for my edification, affirming the right, and (usually) passing over the errors quietly (as long as they’re not soul-destroying ones). I find the majority of soul-destroying errors among the Roman Catholics and modern cultists. Evangelicals have more differences among them in non-essential matters, but like us Orthodox, essential unity in matters of saving faith.
By pilgrim
on 21.07.07
I’m sorry brother Armen, but I think you’ve looked past the basis for what I said above, regarding the throne of David. The Scriptures, in both Testaments, make it clear that Christ Jesus is to reign on the throne of His father David (1Ki 2:33, Ps 132:11, Isa 9:7, Isa 16:5, Lu 1:32). Has Christ physically reigned on David’s throne? Where is David’s throne?
This is why it is not hard to believe the prophecy that declares that Christ will reign 1000 years on the earth, and that Israel’s fullness will bring about this in a restored nation that will experience a national salvation after their individual salvation. (When I speak of Israel I always mean the nation…with believing Israel I always emphasize their faith.)
By Armen
on 21.07.07
Roman
By pilgrim
on 21.07.07
So you are saying that because He does not mention it on the Mount of Olives, at least in the way your looking for it, it is not true? And also because Peter does not mention it when he is preaching on Pentecost, it is not true?
Look at Matthew 25:31-46, which is part of the discourse.
Also, look at the last part of Acts 2:29-36, “both Lord and Christ”.
Lord or Adona
By pilgrim
on 21.07.07
Brother Armen, I want to mention 3 other things as well:
First, assuming certain things should be mentioned in certain passages is not how one builds foundational truth. The scriptures are as they are, and we have to rightly divide them and place things where they logically belong if we seek to know the prophetic word.
Also, Peter would not have known the exact time frame of the Messianic kingdom, because only in Revelation is its time limit given–1000 years. The rest of it is mentioned in the Old Testament, its nature, character and various aspects. The Revelation of Jesus Christ was revealed long after Peter and Paul were martyred.
Second, if I assume that the millenium began with the ascension of Christ, then I must believe that Satan has been bound in the Abyss as well (Rev 20), to no longer deceive the nations. This totally contradicts what the Apostles teach us regarding spiritual warfare and our enemy who lurks around seeking to destroy us.
And third, how could anyone be against a biblical Messianic kingdom? What is strange about it or what evil could come of Christ reigning on the earth?
Does any of this make sense brother?
By Armen
on 21.07.07
pilgrim -
I believe this takes place at the second advent of our Lord, but in no way necessitates an earthly 1000 year reign after His coming.
By Roman
on 21.07.07
I wonder if what you wrote here is applicable to the rabbinical Jews and many Christians today:
I don
By Armen
on 21.07.07
Roman
By pilgrim
on 21.07.07
Well brother Armen, I’m going to take the opportunity afforded and bow out of this one. I obviously do not wield the sword of the Spirit the way you do.
I hope you continue to pursue expository preaching…Grace and peace, brother.
By Armen
on 21.07.07
pilgrim - Well, like I’ve already stated, I’m still not 100% settled. Some excellent men of God are even postmillenial, convinced that there is a millenium, but it happens just before the Lord’s return.
Thank you for this discussion though. I have found it edifying, and beneficial.
Haven't you got anything to say?
Trackbacks...