Romans 9 Class Notes

---

TLC Women’s Bible Study Romans 9 Paul Spurlock 3/13/18

Introduction: Many think chapters 9-11 are a separate topic from Paul’s major themes thus far. They view it as an independent section or subject from the rest of the book that focuses on the salvation of Israel. But is this the case? Or, are the three chapters an elaboration on the earlier subjects of: • Justification by faith. • The Law is good in that it foreshadows Christ and it reveals sin but it cannot save. • Ancestry, ethnicity and ritual are no longer relevant; being in Christ by faith is what saves. So, much of what follows may not be (as the majority presume) a new topic but a review & further elaboration of what Paul has been addressing all along. Therefore, today we will proceed as if Paul is not introducing a new topic, but instead that he is further developing one he has already touched on (e.g. 2:11, 28-29; 3:24, 28-30; 4:3, 9-13; 5:1; 7:1-4; 8:1, 14). Paul is going to explain why Gentiles can now be saved too (because it’s by faith) and, he’s going to address “the elephant in the room” in the church at Rome: Why are not all (or at least a majority) of Jews coming to salvation in Christ!? After all, doesn’t the end of this section (11:26) make it clear!?: “And so, all Israel will be saved.”1 Paul’s point is that it’s not the case that there’s been a failure by God in saving the Jews but a misunderstanding of what “all Israel” means. All along in the OT and in Romans it is the “remnant” that will be saved, not every last Israelite who ever lived. This would mean that Paul’s focus is on the “How?” of Israel being saved. Others, though (& the more popular understanding) view this as focusing on the “When” of Israel being saved. The debate then is over just how much this section is about Eschatology (End Times) and/or Israelology & Soteriology (the salvation of true “Israel”).

9:1-5 Paul’s cry in verse two says it all: he feels “great sorrow and unceasing grief in [his] heart” over the reality that most of his “kinsmen” are still unwilling to embraces their savior! 9:6 Paul’s thesis for the rest of the chapter—God’s promises in His “word” (OT) have not failed! But just how the promises are being fulfilled & will be fulfilled is a different matter. 9:7-8 Why does Paul quote Genesis 21:12 here? Probably because Abraham had more children than just Isaac; he actually had seven more sons. The point: even though all eight sons have equal status to Abraham regarding their lineage & value, only one will (& can) be chosen for an extra role—and that role is to be the lineage from which Jesus will come and fulfill the “promise” of a Savior! Also, note that the discussion here is not about individual salvation or Heaven & Hell but (to this point anyway), it is still about who “Abraham’s descendants” will be and how through them God will bless all nations. See John 8:37-44 for who true “sons of Abraham” actually are; Matthew 3:9 says the same. —Cf. Galatians 4. The “children of promise” & “flesh” (4:21) just means “flesh” by natural means. To be of the “Promise” = supernatural & spiritual means. Esau had the same parentage as Jacob. But Jacob’s line is chosen for the task of ushering in the Messiah. 9:9-13 Calvinists argue this text proves individual (& predestined) election unto salvation—and that it’s unconditional and irresistible. A straight-forward reading seems to favor Calvinism. But, as a counter: • The context is about the line of Messiah, not individual salvation. • So, all other Jews who ever lived (not in Jacob’s line), cannot be saved?

1

Examples of OT promises of salvation to Israel include: Isa. 45:17; 46:13; 49:6; Jer. 3:23; 30:10; Zec. 8:13; etc. Additionally, note how at Ps. 50:5 & 16 (addressed to Jews), some Jews are clearly not included in the remnant due to lack of allegiance to God.

1

• The context of the quote of Genesis 25:23: (“older will serve the younger” & “two nations and two peoples” in womb) and the quote from Malachi 1:2-3 (“Jacob I loved but Esau I hated”)—are about nations, not individuals; nations don’t go to heaven, individuals in nations do. • Calvinists argue that the individuals are in view due to Paul’s chapter-context of lament over so many individual Israelites not being among the saved due to rejecting Christ. In response, why does Paul quote OT texts that explicitly say “nations”? Additionally, while “brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises” can mean individuals, the inclusion of “the Law and the temple” are not individuals but essential features of the Mosaic Covenant to the nation of Israel. • Interestingly (& decisively?), Esau is never said to “serve” or bow to Jacob—but Jacob bowed to Esau seven times! (so this prophecy would be a failed one if it’s about individual men). • An earthly (not eschatological) outcome is in view (the nation of Edom (descendants of Esau) was subservient to Judah in history). Also, the service was limited—both Edom & Judah were destroyed by Babylon and taken off into exile. But only Judah returned; Edom never did. • Quoting from the beginning of OT (Genesis) and the end of the OT (Malachi) strongly suggests that a historical view spanning the story of the nation is in view. • “Hatred” & “loved” are comparative terms; as Hebraisms, they’re not literal. “1” & “1A” is more accurate. • All Edomites were not doomed to Hell (conversely not all of Jacob’s descendants were guaranteed to be saved—they too had to come by faith, as Paul has been arguing all along. Sadly many would reject the gospel).

Again, Abraham had eight sons. Paul’s point, one he repeats over & over, is that physical descent doesn’t matter vis-a-vis spiritual significance or favor before God. Moreover, the purpose of Abraham & his family is never described as having as its goal getting saved. It was to grow a nation that would usher in the Messiah! And, again, only one son’s line could be the one to bring about the Messiah. If this is about unconditional election for individuals, it’s the only place in the Bible that addresses it. Even by OT standards God exacts fair & commensurate justice (“eye for an eye”); and in NT it’s clear He shows no favoritism; He even shows love for enemies. So it would be quite out of step with the Bible, it would seem, for God to arbitrarily choose some for salvation and some for damnation in a predestined sense. This seems to radically go against His revealed character in the whole of the Scriptures as well. Jacob / Israel was chosen for a special task. But special tasks are not a right to anyone. Like the guy who is chosen by prettiest girl in town, not being chosen isn’t an act of injustice to all the other guys. And, Esau & the other descendants of Abraham were very blessed too! So, Esau was not “cheated.” 9:17 We need to keep in mind that Pharaoh had already “hardened” his heart himself (slaughtered kids!) long before God marshaled it (accepted Pharaoh’s will & leveraged it) in the Exodus Account. Moreover, The Exodus Account is also about God wanting to reach Egypt! Having His “NAME…PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH” (God wants all to know Him—and this would begin with Egypt!). 9:18 We must not take this in isolation. In context—and keeping in mind this is a Hebraism—the phrase is like “hated and loved” above (making distinctions in dramatic fashion). It’s not speaking about God randomly loving some and not others (John 3:16 refutes that notion). It also means that in specific situations God offers mercy as needed and that if someone like Pharaoh is hell-bent on self-hardening that God will use such persons for the greater good. But His preference—as explicitly revealed throughout the Bible—(e.g. OT prophets pleading for repentance; Jesus in the NT, etc.), is for all to repent and follow Jesus! Throughout this passage, Calvinists think the (objectors’) premise is good (“No injustice with God”-v. 14) but that their conclusion is bad (God seems to be unfair in what appears to be the arbitrary choosing some & not others). 2

Non-Calvinists think the (objectors’) premise is bad (God seems to be unfair in what appears to be the arbitrary choosing some & not others) but that their conclusion is good (This cannot be—we must be misunderstanding because we know God is fair). 9:20 “Who are you?” implies the objector is actually resisting in this very moment! (See Lk. 7:30, where the “Pharisees rejected” / resisted the Holy Spirit as well. This argues against “irresistible grace.” (Similar to the “inward Jew” point), for Paul to switch to individual election / salvation at this point— after all he’s said thus far—would be to go against his earlier argument that those who receive Jesus by faith are His elect. It would also would be contrary to the OT (circumcision granted access to being in Israel, not ethnicity). In other words, to argue that the point Paul is making with his pottery analogy here is that he is saying that one is simply predestined to be “molded” for salvation (or not) would go completely against his repeated all-letter theme thus far that salvation is by faith and not determined by how one is “made” (born Jew or Gentile). It makes more sense to view the analogy as similar to God’s choosing one family line and nation to usher in the Messiah and one nation to discipline to make His name known to all the world. But even if God wanted to arbitrarily assign different tasks and outcomes for His creations (His “pots”), as Creator of all, is He not entitled to do so? This is surely a tough pill to swallow for Paul’s fellow Jews (that it’s the remnant that is saved and that it includes Gentiles!)…so Paul quotes the OT again (Hosea). 9:25-26 Hosea’s text seems to be discussing alienated Jews. Some see this as teaching a future regathering of ethnic / national Israel (now alienated / not following Jesus presently but eventually turning to Him). But contextually at this point, Paul is now discussing Gentiles. To be sure, Hosea, (in his chapters 1 - 2 & to his original audience in Israel), wouldn’t necessarily be taken this way. But now, via the illumination of the Holy Spirit (Lk. 24:45), the OT Scriptures make sense—especially as they point to ultimate fulfillment in Jesus and that “His people” will be all who, regardless of ethnicity, come to Him by faith! 9:27-33 Compare 1 Peter 2:9-10 with the (two, combined) passages from Isaiah (28:16 & 8:14) quoted here—and as a reference to Gentiles). Note also the Isaiah 10:22 quote at 9:27 (“THE REMNANT THAT WILL BE SAVED” (or “return” as Isaiah 10:22 actually renders it)). So how could Paul “misquote” Isaiah 10:22!? He didn’t. He quoted Isaiah 10:22 from the “Septuagint” (LXX) version of the OT which was the Hebrew OT translated into Greek. Our English Bibles are translated from the Hebrew version which, at times, exhibits slight variations. The point: this “saving” by “returning” must mean a spiritual return and not a geographical one (as in the return from the Babylonian Exile) since the identity of the “mighty God” at Isaiah 10:21 is made know to us at Isaiah 9:6—it refers to Jesus as the “mighty God”!! The “remnant” (= all in Jesus by faith) are saved by “returning” to Jesus spiritually, not by physically returning to Israel. Again, the land of Israel did mean “salvation” in a sense in the OT since it meant returning from exile in Egypt or Babylon, but it was a “type” of ultimate “entering into Jesus” by faith!

3