Results 1 - 6 of 6
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Jacob and Esau | Rom 9:10 | Morant61 | 13694 | ||
Greetings Forum Friends! Allow me to continue my exegesis of Romans 9-11 by looking at Rom. 9:10-15 today! What have we seen thus far in Rom. 9? Paul has been dealing with the question, "Why hasn’t Israel been saved?" Has God failed? Have His promises failed? Paul’s answer is "No! Israel is being saved, but Israel is no made up those who are physically descended from Abraham." To prove this point, Paul looked at Isaac and Ishmael, who were both sons of Abraham, but God only made a covenant with Isaac. In Rom. 9:9-15, Paul continues his argument with another example. Some might say, well Ishmael had a different mother. So, Paul looks at the case of Jacob and Esau. Here is where I differ from my Calvinistic brothers. The question being addressed thus far in Romans 9 is "Who is Israel," not "Who has God elected to save." I agree with them on the point that God’s sovereign right is being asserted in this passage, but it is His sovereign right to work through whom and how He pleases. Verses 10 and 11 illustrate very clearly that God’s working among His people is based solely upon His sovereignty. God’ choice of Jacob over Esau to be the one with whom He would establish His covenant was not based upon anything within the two men (vv. 11-12), but only upon God’s purpose according to election (v. 11). Herein lies the difference between the understanding of this passage by Calvinists and Arminians. Calvinists say that God's purpose according to election is to unconditionally elect certain individuals to salvation. However, this passage never says that. In fact, v. 12 tells us exactly what God’s purpose according to election was in regard to Jacob and Esau…."The older will serve the younger." Notice that the text does not say, "I will save the younger, but not the elder." The context clearly is dealing with national destinies. In fact, look at the full quote from Gen. 25:23, "Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples, born of you, shall be divided; the one shall be stronger than the other, the elder shall serve the younger." The train of thought is clear. Just as God chose to establish His covenant with Isaac, but not Ishmael, so also God chose to establish His covenant with Jacob and not Esau. Thus, proving Paul’s point that simply being a physical descendant of Abraham does not make you a part of the spiritual Israel. Verse 13 offers further proof that Paul is not dealing with the eternal destinies of individuals, but the Divine working out of His sovereign purpose though whom He chooses. Verse 13 quotes Mal. 1:2-3, which is a passage dealing with the nations of Israel and Edom. I will try to avoid to many quotes, but consider the following from Leon Morris, who is a Calvinist: "It is election to privilege that is in mind, not eternal salvation. Moreover, it seems clear that Paul intends a reference to nations rather than individuals….The words quoted say specifically that the elder will serve the younger, but Esau did not in fact serve Jacob, though the Edomites in time came to serve the Israelites. We must also bear in mind that the oracle Paul quotes has earlier said, ‘Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples from within you will be separated’ (Gen. 25:23). The argument concerns Israel as a whole and its place in the purpose of God." (Leon Morris, "The Epistle to the Romans, pg. 356.) Verses 14 and 15 deal with a possible objection that some might raise at this point. Is God unjust in His dealings with Jacob and Esau. Leon Morris summarizes the verses in this way, "To say that God is not just in His treatment of Jacob and Esau misses the point that neither has a claim on God and that in both cases He acts in mercy" (Morris 359). This is the point that I feel Calvinists are missing in Romans 9. The complaint is not that God has restricted His mercy. The complaint is that God has over extended His mercy, past Israel to the Gentiles. Rom. 9:14-15 answers this complaint by point out that God’s actions, far from being unjust, are complete consistent with His merciful nature. Next time, I will be looking at Rom. 9:16-18. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
2 | Jacob and Esau | Rom 9:10 | Makarios | 13739 | ||
Truly excellent post, Tim! It is amazing how closely we Arminians interpret these passages in Romans! You are absolutely right in stating that "Calvinists say that God's purpose according to election is to unconditionally elect certain individuals to salvation. However, this passage never says that." Nowhere can such a meaning in this passage be found if we just interpret this text within the context of the passage. I believe that to come to such a conclusion as "unconditional election" from Romans 9:10-15 is a misinterpretation of Romans 9:10-15. Keep up the excellent studies, my friend! Nolan |
||||||
3 | Jacob and Esau | Rom 9:10 | Reformer Joe | 13752 | ||
Nolan: Actually, I hold that Romans 9:15-24 makes an ironclad case for unconditional election (rather than just examining (9:10-15 in isolation), since the "vessels of wrath" and "vessels of mercy" CANNOT be talking about favored and unfavored nations. Paul undeniably states that the vessels of mercy are those from the Jews and the Gentiles who have been prpared for glory. Unless there is a third type of vessel that Paul forgot to mention, those vessels of destruction also must be from the Jews AND the Gentiles (i.e. those who do not fall in the category of 9:24). This is what Tim does not address in his repetition of the "vessels of mercy" interpretation. No offense, but he seems eager to emphasize the "mercy" group and gloss over the "wrath" group almost completely. One has to do some serious mental gymnastics (far more so than occasionally qualifying the word "all" in its biblical context) to come up with a conclusion other than the one Paul is directly stating. --Joe! |
||||||
4 | Jacob and Esau | Rom 9:10 | Morant61 | 13765 | ||
Greetings Joe! Shame on you! You got me beind the back! :-) Actually, I will be addressing Rom. 9:15-24, probably later today! But, I am not guilty of being "eager to emphasize the "mercy" group and gloss over the "wrath" group almost completely." The fact is, the text (Rom. 9:22) says that God bore with the objects of wrath. No where does it say He destroyed them or condemned them. You also said, "since the "vessels of wrath" and "vessels of mercy" CANNOT be talking about favored and unfavored nations." This statement ignores the context of the Old Testament quote that Paul is using to support his argument. Jer. 18:5-10 says, "Then the word of the LORD came to me: 6 ‘‘O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter does?” declares the LORD. ‘‘Like clay in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel. 7 If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, 8 and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. 9 And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, 10 and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it." Do we not see nations being discussed? Do we not also see that the fate of the nations is not set in stone, but is dependant upon their response to God? I believe that the "objects of mercy," are those from both Jews and Gentiles who make up the Israel of Promise. So I issue your challenge back to you. I think that viewing Romans 9 as a discussion of the unconditional election and reprobation of individuals involves some "serious mental gymnastics," since all of the quotes and the entire argument has to do with "who is a part of Israel," not "who will be saved." You see this is my problem with the Calvinistic approach to Romans. You must make a lot of assumptions that don't even fit the context of the quotes. None of the quotes deal with salvation. They all deal with God's right to work through individuals and nations to accomplish His goal. His goal is clearly stated in Rom. 11:32, but that is ignored. Which view goes through "mental gymnastics?" I will be posting on Rom. 9:16ff later today. I would definitely appreciate your input! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
5 | Jacob and Esau | Rom 9:10 | Reformer Joe | 13837 | ||
Tim: One thing that we have to remember regarding God is that He operates from a perspective outside of time. Jeremiah 18:10 is a very good description from a human perspective how Israel's sin results in judgment. However, if we suggest that God truly changes His mind based on "changes in circumstances," we become Open Theists, saying that God does not know what man will do and will base His plan on what his creation does or doesn't do. Surely you do not think that God really has Plans A, B, C, etc. for the human race. If we are to take Jeremiah 18 as "God will wait and see what we will do," how do you reconcile that with 2 Kings where God has had enough during the reign of Manasseh, and decalres that Israel will be taken into captivity? His grandson Josiah implemented the greatest reforms in the history of Judah, but the biblical text specifically shows that God does not relent and decide not to judge Israel after all. I put to you three questions: 1. Did God know whether Israel whether Israel would repent? 2. If so, when did He know it? 3. What would be the point of Him telling Israel that he would relent if they repented and reject them if they did not? In other words, since he knew that Israel would not repent, why does he give an "if...then" to them? I would assume that you would conlude, as I do, that God was announcing His holy standard, so that they would be without excuse. However, to suggest that God was prepared to re-write his sovereign plan if they would do something would imply that he was not sure how things would turn out for Israel. If Paul writing that the vessels of wrath are "prepared for destruction" does NOT mean that they indeed will be destroyed, as you claim, what does it mean? And one final question comes to mind. How do you fit your Arminian interpretation of Romans 9 with verses 19 and 20? If we are simply asking, "Who is Israel?", why would the hypothetical challenger ask "Who resists his will?" That question one an individual would ask in reference to himself, not an ethnic people. The vessels of mercy are indeed "spiritual Israel." Hoever, notice that the word "vessels" is plural, indicating that a vessel is indeed an individual unit of spitirual Israel. In other words, individual people. The vessels of destruction are not being destroyed NOW, for a very specific purpose. Romans 1 and 2 shows that God is restraining his wrath now. However, there is the "wrath to come," when all those vessels prepared for destruction will indeed be destroyed. ALL of them. --Joe! |
||||||
6 | Jacob and Esau | Rom 9:10 | Morant61 | 13839 | ||
Greetings Joe! Sure! Now "all" means "all." :-) I agree with you again that Open Theism is not an option. But, I also view the choices that nations and individuals must make in response to God as real choices. So, in answer to your questions. 1) Yes He knew if they would repent or not! 2) He knew it timelessly. 3) Because they had to make the choice. God's timeless knowledge of an event does not determine said event. So, He gives Israel, and other nations, a choice. They have to decide what they are going to do. Concerning the vessels of wrath and 9:19-20, allow me to address these in my post on that section tomorrow. I don't want to have type everything twice. Concerning the plural, I would agree that the vessels also have reference to individuals, in the sense the nations are made up of invidiuals. My point though is that Rom. 9 isn't primarily concerned with individuals. There is some cross over though. For instance, as an individual we can become a part of the Spiritual Israel by accepting Christ. Hopefully, my post on this section of Romans tomorrow will address some of your points. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||