Justification and Law in Paul

You are the one egaged in strange exegesis. PAUL DOES NOT QUOTE THAT ASPECT OF THE PASSAGE IN EXODUS because it is not valid to his contextual based argument in Romans 9:15-18. In Romans 9:15-18 he is not arguing about WHY he raised up Pharoah in regard to Israel, he is arguing that God has the right to have mercy or harden whom he pleases and Pharoah is given as an example of that RIGHT to raise up for the purpose of hardening.

Your position depends on going back into Exodus and quoting what Paul did not quote to prove a position that Paul is not even considering. Paul's point is not about Pharoah's relationship to Israel's redemption but about God's right to harden whom He pleases and Paul only quotes that portion that has to do with the point he is making which is made cyrstal clear by verses 15-16 and the conclusion drawn in verse 18. If Paul had your view in mind the conclusion would be different in verse 18 as your position would have verse 18 reading:

18 "Therefore, God raises up such men in order to show his power to deliver Israel from the ungodly"

instead of:

18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

In addition, the objection in verse 19 is drawn from the conclusion in verse 18. The objector rightly concludes IF God sovereignly has mercy on whom He will and hardens whom he will then how can God hold accountable those whom he hardens as no one can resist or overthrow His will. Verses 20-24 is given to respond to that argument by REINFORCING God's sovereign right to do what He wills with his own as the potter has the right to do what he wills with the clay.

 

This context is not about overcoming problems that hinder the salvation of Israel. Romans 9:6-8 is about overcoming the objection that God has not kept his promise to Abraham in saving the "children of promise."

6 ¶ Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
8 That 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.

Romans 9:9-13 is about the defining characteristics of "the children of promise"

1. They are not the children after the flesh like Ishmael
2. They are supernatural born children like Isaac
3. They are elected children before birth based on grace not works like Jacob

Romans 9:14-23 is concerned with those who object to the limitations in Romans 9:6-8 and the restrictive definitions of "the children of promise" in Romans 9:8-13.

You are exactly the kind of person that Paul was answering. The kind that denies that God has the right to choose some over others. The right to save some and allow others to continue in their sins.

 

You cannot read Romans 11 back into Romans 9 as they deal with two very different objections.

1. Romans 9 deals with the objection that God has failed to keep His promise to Abraham because some Jews have rejected Christ.

2. Romans 11 deals with the objection that God has utterly rejected Israel as a nation because they have rejected Christ.

What is very amusing is your reactions to simply the precise language of the texts. I simply point out the precise language but you react by defining the obvious meaning of that language:


Originally Posted by Dr. Walter
Pharoah is placed in the midst of Paul's argument proving that God sovereignly chooses on whom he will have mercy and whom he hardeneth. HE IS NOT TRYING TO PROVE ANY OTHER POINT.

You seem to simply assume that Paul is making an general argument about the "predestination" of individuals to heaven or hell. Well, you need to actually make that case - not simply assume it. - Andre

You assume ("You SEEM to simply imply") that the very language is "about the 'predestination' of individuals". There is no assumption here as the text explicitly and precisely states God will have mercy on whom he will have mercy and on whom he will he hardeneth - NO CONDITIONS STATED just absolute sovereignty stated.

Likewise, in the illustration of the potter - NO CONDITIONS STATED just absolute sovereignty stated

 

Andre, You read into the text what you want it to say. You ignore the developmental context. You add what is not there in order to avoid what is there. You refuse to allow the context define what it means and what it means is very very simple and straightforward:

1. God has not broken His promise to Abraham because God did not promise Abraham every child born after the flesh would be "the children of promise"

2. Only the children born after the pattern of Isaac are the children of promise - supernatural birth

3. Only the children born after the pattern of Jacob are the children of promise - chosen according to the election of grace before physical birth and thus before having done any personal good or evil

4. Only those children whom God has set his love upon as Jacob - chosen before hand.

5. God is perfectly righteous and just to have mercy upon whom he will and harden whom he wills

6. God is perfectly righteous and just to make one vessel to honor and anothor to dishonor

7. God is perfectly righteous and just to "prepare" vessels of mercy for glory and to patiently put up with vessels fitted to destruction.

Why is God perfectly just to do so? Because the term "mercy" refers to those who justly deserve destruction and therefore the "same lump" is the FALLEN lump of mankind that according to strict justice deserves "destruction" of the whole lump.

 

Dear Reader,

Romans 9:15-23 has one key word used all the way through. That key word is "MERCY."

The difference between MERCY and GRACE is that mercy is God holding back deserved PUNISHMENT whereas grace is giving you BLESSINGS or what you don't merit or deserve.

All those upon whom God has "mercy" upon and are "vessels of MERCY" who according to JUSTICE deserve judgement and destruction.

Hence, the whole basis of Paul's argument is in regard to FALLEN MAN which deserves wrath not salvation. Unfallen man does not need either mercy or grace as there is no judgement against him and no salvation necessary for him as he has not fallen into sin.

In the potter's illustration "the same lump" represents FALLEN MANKIND as those prepared to glory are vessels of "MERCY". Thus those "fitted to destruction" are fitted according to their own fallen, rebellious, resistant, God hating, God resisting nature. This is why Paul says that God "endures" with much longsuffering those "fitted to wrath." What is it to be an enemy of God? It is simply to freely choose to be, do and say those things God hates (Rom. 8:7).

God is just if he cast the whole lump of fallen mankind into destruction as that is what they JUSTLY deserve. God is therefore just in allowing those "fitted to destruction" to freely go on their way to destruction by their own free choice. God is merciful in saving any as the salvation of any must be considered a "vessel of MERCY."

What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

This text alone disproves Andre's contention that these vessels are hardened simply to allow salvation to come to the Jews because:

1. Salvation does not come to Jews alone - vv. 24-33
2. The vessels of dishonor are subjects of "his wrath" and "vessels of wrath fitted to destruction." Not merely temporary hardening but ultimate destruction.

 

No! Because what you are teaching is utter nonsense.

 

Paul is not attempting to develop an argument that God has the right to harden JUST Israel but all who are "children of the flesh" in contrast to "the children of promise" just as he is developing an argument that he can have mercy upon whom he will have mercy both Jews and Gentiles.

In regard to Israel as a nation, Paul denies that every individual physical born Jew is one of the promised Children:

Rom. 9:8 That 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.


However, Paul cannot make such a denial without demonstrating how they are distinguished from one another and that is precisely what you are either ignorning or denying in verses 9-13. They are distinguished in the examples provided Isaac versus Ishmael and Jacob versus Esau.

In the case of Isaac versus the other seven children of Abraham by his wives Keturah and Hagar the distinction is clear - Isaac was a supernatural birth and this distinguished him from the children of the flesh and this is exactly the characteristic Paul applies to both Jews and Gentiles who are the children of promise:

Rom. 8:99 For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son.


Gal. 4:28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.

So the first distinctive characteristic between the children of the flesh and the children of promise is a SUPERNATURAL BIRTH where God is bringing it about not by the will of the flesh or the will of man but wholly by the will of God.

The second distinction between the children of the flesh and the children of Promise is illustrated in the birth of Jacob and Esau.

Rom. 9:10 And 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
12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
.

This is the distinction of election of grace before they were born, before they did anything to merit or demerit. Jacob was part of God's promised seed whereas Esau was not. God set his elective love upon Jacob before the foundation of the world as he did those Jews and Gentiles at Thessalonica:

2 Thes. 2:13 ¶ But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:

Paul told the saved Jews and Gentiles at Ephesus the very same thing:

Eph. 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

Of course Paul anticipated people like you and that you would object to such a teaching:

Rom. 9:14 ¶ What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid

Romans 9:15-18 is simply Paul's response to this objection that comes from persons like you who would say that is not right. However, Paul goes on to defend that God has the right to reject Esau and have mercy upon Jacob just as he later had the right to harden Pharoah.

Romans 9:19-24 continues to defend His right to reject Esau and Pharoah - both Jew and Gentiles and harden them but have mercy upon Isaac's and Jacobs as with all the children of promise who are of Jews and Gentiles (v. 24).

This is the clear, simple and straight forward teaching and yes, you do need to sit at my feet and learn this.

 

No, the "entire" section 9-11 is not devoted to explaining why God has hardened Israel! That is only the PRIMARY subject of chapter 11. It is not the PRIMARY subject of chapter 9 or 10. You cannot take chapter 11 and read it back into chapters 9-10.

You are correct that this entire block of chapters is dealing primarily with Israel BUT in relationship with the Gentiles and in regard to different things.

1. Chapter nine deals with the promise made to Abraham and why it does not apply to every Jews but only to the children of promise among them - thus God's sovereign right to choose whom He will have mercy upon and whom he will harden among Israel as well as among all mankind.

2. Chapter ten deals with the chosen means to save the children of promise out of Israel and out of the Gentiles.

3. Chapter elven deals with God's purpose in hardening Israel so that the children of promise among the gentiles will be saved.

 

Another reason that your interpretation of Romans 9 is fundementally in error is because it is inconsistent with your own argument. You argue that Romans 9:15-23 justifies God's right to harden Israel as a NATION in order to go to the Gentiles.

However, in Romans 9:6-14 you interpret Isaac and Jacob to personify the NATION of Israel but if that were the case (which it is not) then you would have Paul arguing for Israel's elective salvation in Romans 9:6-14 rather than hardening but then in verses 15-23 reversing his argument to hardening instead of salvation. Hence, your position and interpretation are self-contradictory.

But it is clear from the transitional language that verses 15-18 is arguing in support of statements made in verses 6-13 rather than making a contrast as your position requires. Verses 15-18 are answering the objection raised in verse 14 against what he has stated in verses 9-13. In addition verses 19-23 is further defending the conclusion he made in verse 18.

So your own argument and intepretations contradict themselves and contradict the transitional texts that demonstrate that what Paul has stated to be the truth in verses 6-13 is what he is further defending against the objection to it in verse 14 and that verses 19-23 is a further defense against the objection rasied against his conclusion in verse 18.

In contrast, my interpretation of Romans 9:6-23 below is consistent and harmonizes with the developed thought.

 

Here is the problem with your analysis above. It contains a partial truth. The partial truth is that Israel is the primary focus in chapters 9-11. However, Israel is only the PRIMARY focus not the ENTIRE focus because salvation or hardening cannot be limited to merely Israel in exclusion of the Gentiles.

I can go through each chapter as you did to point out references to the Jews but I can point out large blocks in each chapter that deal with the Gentiles so it is wrong to say that any of these chapters deals exclusively with Israel to the exclusion of the Gentiles.

Finally, there is a common ground and a contrast in each chapter in dealing with both Jews and Gentiles. The common ground is God's right to have mercy upon whom he wills and harden who he wills in regard to salvation within Israel and among gentiles (chs. 9-10). The contrast is the prominent position of Israel in God's purpose of redemption in regard to the Gentiles in one part of history as opposed to another portion of history (ch. 11).

Here is the point - all aspects of salvation are common ground for both Israel and Gentiles (chs. 9-10) but timing and preeminence in God's purpose of redemption in regard to the nation of Israel vesus Gentile nations is contrasted (ch. 11).

Of course, I don't believe for a second that you are really interested in the truth of this section of scripture but only interested in how to make it fit your presumptive theory.

 

HP: That could certainly be rightfully said of your approach to this passage.