Post by Josh Parsley on Apr 2, 2007 10:51:46 GMT -5
Steve, have you changed anything from this old post of yours?
--------------------
I will attempt here to give an interpretation of Romans 9 that is faithful to the context. I contend that this passage of Scripture when understood in context does not support the Reformed doctrine of unconditional election. I invite comments, criticisms, corrections, and questions for clarity.
I believe that one of the keys to understanding the meaning of Romans 9 is to examine Paul’s own summary of his argument at the close of the chapter. As Grant Osborne says about this summary: “If our conclusions about the author’s argumentation differ from the conclusion he himself provides, it is clear we are misunderstanding his argument.”
Paul begins his summary in verse 30 by asking the question, “What shall we say then?”. He then proceeds to explain the point he has developed in this chapter. “That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the ‘stumbling stone.’ As 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.’” (Vs. 30-33) Paul’s point in Romans 9 is that unbelieving Israel is lost. The objections throughout the chapter are not coming from Arminians against God’s sovereign choice to unconditionally elect and reprobate. They come from unbelieving Israel; God’s chosen people of whom Paul says, “Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ…” (Vs 4-5).
The unbelief of the majority of the Jews and their present rejection for that unbelief is the issue Paul is dealing with throughout Romans 9-11. F. Leroy Forlines says, “A proper understanding of how Romans 9 relates to election begins with a proper grasp of the problem Paul is dealing with. That problem is the Jewish concern that Paul does not go along with the Jewish belief in the corporate salvation of all Jews as the Covenant Seed of Abraham.”
Let me try to break this passage down as I understand it.
Romans 9:1-4a
Paul begins chapter 9 by expressing his anguish that most of his fellow Israelites are unsaved.
Romans 9:4b-5
They are lost despite the fact that they are God’s chosen people:
Romans 9:6-13
This begs the question: If God’s chosen people are lost, then has God’s word failed? Paul’s answer is no. God never promised to save all of Abraham’s seed just because they descended from him. Paul argues that God is completely justified in rejecting unbelieving Jews. He goes on to point out that even the Jews don’t regard all of Abraham’s seed as part of the covenant seed of Abraham. They already acknowledged that the descendants of Ishmael were not part of the covenant, but only those descended from Isaac. Furthermore, they held that not all the descendants of Isaac were part of the covenant, but only those descended from Jacob. The point Paul was making is that even the Jews admitted that God had not promised salvation to all of Abraham’s descendants. It’s vital to understand that the context of verses 10-12 is Paul making the point that not all the natural seed of Abraham are a part of the covenant seed. Paul is not trying to lay out a doctrine of unconditional election to salvation in this passage. That is foreign to the context. Read in context, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated”, is simply serving to make the point that the Jewish concept of the unconditional election of all Jews as the covenant seed must be discarded.
Romans 9:14-29
Again the key is to keep this in context. When Paul says, “What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all!” (14), he is not refuting the Arminian, but the unbelieving Jew. If this is so, then it must be recognized that the Jews had no problem with the rejection of Ishmael and Jacob. Once again Forlines notes, “The only trouble the Jews had with unconditional election was that according to Paul, God had not unconditionally elected all Jews as they had thought.” Paul denies that God is unrighteous in not saving all Jews. In this passage Paul declares that God saves whom He wills and d**ns whom He wills, Jews or otherwise. The quote from Exodus 33:19, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”, supports this point. Robert Picirilli explains, “Even in the wilderness, when we might think all the nation was automatically entitled to His favor he said: ‘I will show mercy on whom I will show mercy.’ In other words, He wanted it clearly established that neither Moses nor Israel had any special claims on Him that took away His sovereign right to act as He chose. Nor will He show mercy to all of them just because they were Israelites in the flesh.” God has sovereignly chosen to have mercy on believers and reject unbelievers, Jews or otherwise. So when Paul says, "It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy.", he is simply repeating what he's been saying throught the book of Romans: We are justified by faith and not by works. Once again this smacks the face of the unbelieving Jew's concept of works righteousness.
Romans 9:30-33
Paul makes it clear in his summary that the reason that so many Jews were not saved is not based on the idea that God unconditionally elected some rather than all Jews. Rather, it is because they had failed to meet the condition of faith in Christ. As Forlines so aptly summarizes, "In other words, not all Jews are saved because salvation is conditioned on faith and not all Jews have met the condition. This is the bottom line: salvation is conditioned on faith. And conditional salvation calls for conditional election."
If you have comments or questions on specific verses in the passage I'll be happy to try to explain where I stand in more detail.
Steve
source here
--------------------
I will attempt here to give an interpretation of Romans 9 that is faithful to the context. I contend that this passage of Scripture when understood in context does not support the Reformed doctrine of unconditional election. I invite comments, criticisms, corrections, and questions for clarity.
I believe that one of the keys to understanding the meaning of Romans 9 is to examine Paul’s own summary of his argument at the close of the chapter. As Grant Osborne says about this summary: “If our conclusions about the author’s argumentation differ from the conclusion he himself provides, it is clear we are misunderstanding his argument.”
Paul begins his summary in verse 30 by asking the question, “What shall we say then?”. He then proceeds to explain the point he has developed in this chapter. “That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the ‘stumbling stone.’ As 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.’” (Vs. 30-33) Paul’s point in Romans 9 is that unbelieving Israel is lost. The objections throughout the chapter are not coming from Arminians against God’s sovereign choice to unconditionally elect and reprobate. They come from unbelieving Israel; God’s chosen people of whom Paul says, “Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ…” (Vs 4-5).
The unbelief of the majority of the Jews and their present rejection for that unbelief is the issue Paul is dealing with throughout Romans 9-11. F. Leroy Forlines says, “A proper understanding of how Romans 9 relates to election begins with a proper grasp of the problem Paul is dealing with. That problem is the Jewish concern that Paul does not go along with the Jewish belief in the corporate salvation of all Jews as the Covenant Seed of Abraham.”
Let me try to break this passage down as I understand it.
Romans 9:1-4a
Paul begins chapter 9 by expressing his anguish that most of his fellow Israelites are unsaved.
Romans 9:4b-5
They are lost despite the fact that they are God’s chosen people:
Romans 9:6-13
This begs the question: If God’s chosen people are lost, then has God’s word failed? Paul’s answer is no. God never promised to save all of Abraham’s seed just because they descended from him. Paul argues that God is completely justified in rejecting unbelieving Jews. He goes on to point out that even the Jews don’t regard all of Abraham’s seed as part of the covenant seed of Abraham. They already acknowledged that the descendants of Ishmael were not part of the covenant, but only those descended from Isaac. Furthermore, they held that not all the descendants of Isaac were part of the covenant, but only those descended from Jacob. The point Paul was making is that even the Jews admitted that God had not promised salvation to all of Abraham’s descendants. It’s vital to understand that the context of verses 10-12 is Paul making the point that not all the natural seed of Abraham are a part of the covenant seed. Paul is not trying to lay out a doctrine of unconditional election to salvation in this passage. That is foreign to the context. Read in context, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated”, is simply serving to make the point that the Jewish concept of the unconditional election of all Jews as the covenant seed must be discarded.
Romans 9:14-29
Again the key is to keep this in context. When Paul says, “What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all!” (14), he is not refuting the Arminian, but the unbelieving Jew. If this is so, then it must be recognized that the Jews had no problem with the rejection of Ishmael and Jacob. Once again Forlines notes, “The only trouble the Jews had with unconditional election was that according to Paul, God had not unconditionally elected all Jews as they had thought.” Paul denies that God is unrighteous in not saving all Jews. In this passage Paul declares that God saves whom He wills and d**ns whom He wills, Jews or otherwise. The quote from Exodus 33:19, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”, supports this point. Robert Picirilli explains, “Even in the wilderness, when we might think all the nation was automatically entitled to His favor he said: ‘I will show mercy on whom I will show mercy.’ In other words, He wanted it clearly established that neither Moses nor Israel had any special claims on Him that took away His sovereign right to act as He chose. Nor will He show mercy to all of them just because they were Israelites in the flesh.” God has sovereignly chosen to have mercy on believers and reject unbelievers, Jews or otherwise. So when Paul says, "It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy.", he is simply repeating what he's been saying throught the book of Romans: We are justified by faith and not by works. Once again this smacks the face of the unbelieving Jew's concept of works righteousness.
Romans 9:30-33
Paul makes it clear in his summary that the reason that so many Jews were not saved is not based on the idea that God unconditionally elected some rather than all Jews. Rather, it is because they had failed to meet the condition of faith in Christ. As Forlines so aptly summarizes, "In other words, not all Jews are saved because salvation is conditioned on faith and not all Jews have met the condition. This is the bottom line: salvation is conditioned on faith. And conditional salvation calls for conditional election."
If you have comments or questions on specific verses in the passage I'll be happy to try to explain where I stand in more detail.
Steve
source here