Trout
March 20th 2005, 06:35 PM
Romans 9 - Introduction
by Robert Anderson
The following text was from a radio debate between myself and a Reformed believer. It has been edited for this format. Unless otherwise noted, the Scripture is from the New Revised Standard version of the Bible.
Roman 9 has always been one of the most difficult passages of the New Testament to interpret. This is due in part because of the agendas that we often bring to text when we are interpreting this passage.
1. Reformed believers tend to see this as a proof text for their particular position on the supposition that God chooses individuals for salvation apart from any choice of the individual.
2. Many other believers will avoid this passage altogether or labor to see some form of justification for God's choosing in the passage (which I believe is there if we are willing to find it).
However, I believe that the passage is a critical support for Paul's overall argument in Romans and must be dealt with within that context. Therefore, I would propose the following proposition for my position in this debate:
"Romans 9 must be interpreted within the context of Paul's argument concerning redemption and provides a justification for the redefinition of the covenant people of God. Therefore, the election it speaks to is corporate, with entry into that covenant through faith."
I do not believe that this long discussion will do justice to either my position or to my opponents'. Rather it is my desire that we open your minds to encourage further investigation into these topics and as Paul told the church in Rome, that we might "share with you some spiritual gift to strengthen you-or rather so that we may be mutually encouraged by each other's faith, both yours and mine" (Romans 1:11b-12).
First Statement - Romans 9 in Context
Any proper exegesis of a Biblical passage must begin by putting aside our presuppositions and examining the passage within context. By saying this, I want to begin my discussion of Romans 9 by examining two things.
First, of course, we want to see what Paul is saying in Romans 9 within the narrative context of his letter and how this particular passage fits within Paul's larger thesis that he is presenting to the Romans.
As I do this, I also want to examine the historical context in which the author and the audience dwell and their basic paradigm or view of the covenant community that they would have had as they read this text. A key principle of exegesis is that a text cannot mean something to me that was not intended for the original audience. So we need to examine at least some basic aspects of how the audience would have heard the text and what Paul was getting at within his historical context.
Paul's Overall Agenda in Romans
As Paul begins his dialogue in the book of Romans, he presents what I would call his primary thesis statement for his argument in Romans 1:16-17 -
16) For I am not ashamed of the gospel; it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 17) For in it the righteousness of God is revealed through faith for faith; as it is written, "The one who is righteous will live by faith."
I call this an argument, because any logical presentation that has premises, claims, and conclusions (or resolutions) is simply that - a logical argument for a case that needs proving.
In the case of Romans, Paul is dealing with a problem that has manifested itself historically in the church as documented in the book of Acts and which Paul consistently deals with in his letter to other churches. For Paul, there has been a change in the covenant community that has met resistance by the established community. That is, Paul is dealing with the issue of the entry of Gentiles into the covenant community, which he now recognizes as the church.
This is a common theme in the letters of Paul -
1. The letter to the Galatians presents one of Paul earliest arguments for this, culminating in that well known assertion that "there is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to the promise." (Galatians 3:28-29).
2. In his letter to the Ephesians, he tells the Gentile believers that "now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14) For he is our peace; in his flesh he has made both groups into one and has broken down the dividing wall, that is, the hostility between us" (Ephesians 2:13-14).
Why was this an issue for the Jewish believers in Christ? To understand this, we need to understand the Jewish concept of the covenant community. And we need to see this from the Jewish perspective for two reasons:
1. Paul and almost all of the writers of the New Testament were Jewish. He comes out of this tradition and his writing will be consistent with it. It is simply part of his worldview, which has been expanded in Christ.
2. If Christianity is the successor to Judaism in terms of the covenant relationship that humanity has with God, it must be consistent with the concept of the inheritance of the promise that is found in Judaism. Christianity completes Judaism. It does not usurp it.
To understand the argument that Paul will present in Romans and the nature of the conflict he is dealing with, then, it seems we must first delve briefly into the Jewish mindset on how salvation worked.
I like the way N. T. Wright states this (Wright, N. T., The New Testament and the People of God, (Fortress Press, Minneapolis, 1992), 457.) -
'The basic Jewish answer to the question, "How is the creator dealing with evil within his creation?" was of course that he had called Israel.'
While Jewish thought and religious practice varied in the first century, the concept of election held by Jewish writers was equivalent to being in the covenant community with God. That is, God had elected Israel or a sub-group (the remnant) within Israel to carry the promises of God and also as a means of dealing with evil in this world. The covenant people were "saved" from this world by being set apart as the people of God. The work that God started with Adam and Eve was renewed in Abraham.
Individuals in the community were the elect simply because of their inclusion in the covenantal community. Indeed, there are phrases within Jewish writings that place God's election of a people side by side with phrases emphasizing the free will of individuals. As noted in the scrolls of Qumran, human choice was combined with God's election and there were "those who volunteer to join the elect of God." The members of a community were called the elect and community were composed of "all those who had freely devoted themselves."
While the Essene communities were monastic and extreme, they held to the basic Jewish concept of election. In their mind, voluntary entry into their community was entry into the elect.
(Note: See also James Dunn, Jesus Remembered, for addition information on this aspect of Jewish election as a whole.)
This corporate concept also was held by other Jewish sects, such as the Pharisees, and was common to Jewish thought.
Does this perspective translate over into Christianity? Absolutely! In fact, the focus of the New Testament discussions on election and covenant are to show that the covenant community has expanded to include those who are Gentiles.
N. T. Wright puts it this way -
"The early Christians, on the basis of everything we know of them from both within and without the canonical 'New Testament', accepted this answer… Israel's purpose had come to its head in Jesus' work, … Those who now belonged to Jesus' people were not identical with ethnic Israel, since Israel's history had reached its intended fulfillment; they claimed to be the continuation of Israel in a new situation…"
Paul's thesis statement in Romans 1:16-17 provides us with a simple direct statement of his intent for the entire discourse in this letter. His overall purpose in writing the letter is to provide the case and means for reforming the covenant community. It is within the frameworks of this Jewish covenantal thinking of community and Paul's thesis that we come to Romans 9.
Now, all arguments have three basic components that must be present:
1) A problem or issue is presented
2) A series of claims or evidences are presented related to that
3) A conclusion is drawn from the claims that relates to the problem at hand
In this section of Scripture, which really encompasses Romans 9 to 11, Paul is going to address the issue of how we are to understand the Jewish people - who were called "God's elect." In this passage Paul will examine the thesis that he has presented in the light of the Jewish perception that the covenant is restricted to the descendents of Abraham and those who follow the law. What Paul will show in Romans 9 then is that (to phrase his thesis somewhat differently) -
1. The uniqueness of the Jews as the physical descendents of Abraham is not a criterion for being a member of God's people.
2. Salvation is open to everyone who has faith.
This first point is presented in Paul's introduction to this chapter by focusing on the common Jewish belief that descent from Abraham is a requirement of covenant membership. This is found in the first five verses of Romans 9:
1) I am speaking the truth in Christ-I am not lying; my conscience confirms it by the Holy Spirit- 2) I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3) For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my own people, my kindred according to the flesh. 4) They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; 5) to them belong the patriarchs, and from them, according to the flesh, comes the Messiah, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.
This issue can be summarized as follows:
Paul's overwhelming concern for the Jews (his own people), to whom belongs the covenant, who are considered by the flesh to be the elect, is that they are lost. Consequently, there appears to be a failure of the covenant for Israel.
Paul then presents a series of claims or evidences (Romans 9:6-29) that ultimately must support the conclusion given by Paul. That conclusion is found in Romans 9.30-10:4 (keep in mind that the chapter divisions are somewhat artificial).
9:30) What then are we to say? Gentiles, who did not strive for righteousness, have attained it, that is, righteousness through faith; 31) but Israel, who did strive for the righteousness that is based on the law, did not succeed in fulfilling that law. 32) Why not? Because they did not strive for it on the basis of faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, 33) as it is written,
"See, I am laying in Zion a stone that will make people stumble, a rock that will make them fall, and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame."
10:1)Brothers and sisters, my heart's desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved. 2) I can testify that they have a zeal for God, but it is not enlightened. 3) For, being ignorant of the righteousness that comes from God, and seeking to establish their own, they have not submitted to God's righteousness. 4) For Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.
Paul's ultimate conclusion is that the Jews as a people - the covenant people - are lost because they did not submit to God's righteousness, which is found in the faith of Christ (10:3). Those who are saved, whether Jews or Gentiles, are those who have achieved righteousness by faith - by submitting to God's righteousness found in Christ.
Now, I want you to focus on this conclusion carefully. Nowhere in the conclusion does Paul indicate that individuals are elected to heaven or hell before their response of submitting to God's righteousness in Christ. Rather Paul is simply stating that Gentiles are saved by faith, and Jews who reject Christ are lost because THEY DID NOT SUBMIT to God's righteousness in Christ. People are saved because they respond by faith to God's act in Jesus Christ.
Therefore, having established Paul's issue and his conclusion to that issue, we can confidently state that this passage is not designed as an argument for pre-faith election of individuals in Christ. Rather the conclusion of Paul in this text specifically states that those who are lost are those who (to quote Paul) "have not submitted to God's righteousness". However, those who are saved, as Paul indicates of the Gentiles, are those who (again, quoting Paul) "have attained … righteousness through faith." In the second case, the response of faith has RESULTED IN the attainment of righteousness, not vice versa.
The various claims or evidences found between Paul's presentation of the issue and his conclusion (Romans 9:6-29) must OF NECESSITY support this conclusion in order for his argument to be coherent. We cannot examine these in isolation of this conclusion. Rather, they must be examined within context and support the entry of individuals into the covenant by their submission in faith to Christ.
How they support this argument will be presented very briefly in my next two statements.
Second Statement - Jacob and Esau
It could be argued that what I am calling the "evidences" or "claims" can stand alone as statements of faith and that while they fit into the overall argument that Paul is presenting, in themselves they have an internal integrity that allows them to be treated as sub-arguments. Indeed, we can see three such sub-arguments among the claims.
However, they cannot stand independently or be contradictory to the overall argument presented in the text of Romans 9. The conclusion to that argument states that the attainment of righteousness RESULTS FROM the act of faith.
Let me deal with one of these claims at this point - In Romans 9:6, Paul raises the issue of whether the word of God has failed.
6) It is not as though the word of God had failed. For not all Israelites truly belong to Israel, 7) and not all of Abraham's children are his true descendants; but "It is through Isaac that descendants shall be named for you." 8) This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as descendants. . 9) For this is what the promise said, "About this time I will return and Sarah shall have a son."
Notice how Paul phrases this as he quotes Genesis 18:14. The question is not about whether one person is saved above another. The question being posed is whether God has failed to fulfill the promise to Abraham concerning the covenant and his descendents. Every single book of the Pentateuch (what the Jews would understand as the Law), reiterates the promise of the land and the fact that he would be their God. It is also found in the histories, the writings, and prophets. Israel was told to look to Abraham as their root. The promise is re-affirmed in Jewish writings during the inter-testamental period as well.
So if salvation and the covenant are open to everyone, there is the appearance that God has not been faithful to his word - his word has failed. What Paul has to do to defend his conclusion is show that the promise is not restricted to those who are physically descended from Abraham. Therefore, he approaches the problem by simply saying that God had not chosen all the descendents of Abraham to carry the promise, but only the children of the promise - Isaac and then Jacob. If "the covenant people" is the way God is dealing with evil in this world, then God's promise of Isaac was that his people would serve this function. They would provide a blessing to the world. Specifically, God's promise to Abraham from the same passage that Paul quotes above, was "that Abraham shall become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him" (Genesis 18:18).
Paul's point here is simply that there is a difference between the children of the flesh and the children of the promise - which is the issue at stake here. The children of the promise are those who will provide the blessing. They are not necessarily the children of the flesh.
Paul goes on and gives a second illustration to prove his point using Jacob and Esau as the example.
10) Nor is that all; something similar happened to Rebecca when she had conceived children by one husband, our ancestor Isaac. 11) Even before they had been born or had done anything good or bad (so that God's purpose of election might continue, 12) not by works but by his call) she was told, "The elder shall serve the younger." 13) As it is written,
"I have loved Jacob,
but I have hated Esau."
Now many people have misunderstood this text. Some have developed the belief that God literally hated the individual Esau. Yet if we examine it historically, we will see that this is not the case. The only thing that is truly said to Rebecca in Genesis 25 is this:
23) And the LORD said to her,
"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."
Here the statement if very simply - there are two nations that are going to come from Rebecca and the elder brother will server the younger (who will be stronger). That the covenant promise passed to Jacob is not to be disputed. His descendents would carry the blessing to the world. However, we know from Genesis 33 that Jacob and Esau were reconciled and that both received physical blessing from God and from each other. Jacob simply became the bearer for the promise. In fact, Jacob partially fulfills this choosing of God by bringing blessing to Esau!
Where then does Paul get this statement about God loving Jacob and hating Esau? The statement "I have loved Jacob, but I have hated Esau" comes approximately 1500 years later and does not refer to the individuals, but to two nations - Israel (then a Persian colony) and Edom. The text is taken from the prophet Malachi and concerns the oppression of post-exilic Israel by the Edomites. God is simply re-affirming that they are the covenant people, and their return to the land is part of his plan for them, and that he will protect them. But we must keep in mind that this statement CANNOT be taken as a foreordained decree of election because it is a consequence of God's choice, not a premise to that choice. Historically, it comes, in time, 1500 years after the birth of Jacob and Esau.
How then does this statement fit into the argument for Gentile acceptance into the covenant? Paul is simply stating that God has the right to choose people OUTSIDE of their ethnic or nationalistic heritage. While the Edomites were descended from Abraham, they were not part of the covenant people. From an ethnic perspective (which is the way Paul is presenting the argument), in order for Edomites to become part of that covenant, they would have to enter into Israel (or the Jewish people) by the act of circumcision. . .
READ AND DISCUSS THE ENTIRE ARTICLE HERE: (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?p=962037#post962037)
by Robert Anderson
The following text was from a radio debate between myself and a Reformed believer. It has been edited for this format. Unless otherwise noted, the Scripture is from the New Revised Standard version of the Bible.
Roman 9 has always been one of the most difficult passages of the New Testament to interpret. This is due in part because of the agendas that we often bring to text when we are interpreting this passage.
1. Reformed believers tend to see this as a proof text for their particular position on the supposition that God chooses individuals for salvation apart from any choice of the individual.
2. Many other believers will avoid this passage altogether or labor to see some form of justification for God's choosing in the passage (which I believe is there if we are willing to find it).
However, I believe that the passage is a critical support for Paul's overall argument in Romans and must be dealt with within that context. Therefore, I would propose the following proposition for my position in this debate:
"Romans 9 must be interpreted within the context of Paul's argument concerning redemption and provides a justification for the redefinition of the covenant people of God. Therefore, the election it speaks to is corporate, with entry into that covenant through faith."
I do not believe that this long discussion will do justice to either my position or to my opponents'. Rather it is my desire that we open your minds to encourage further investigation into these topics and as Paul told the church in Rome, that we might "share with you some spiritual gift to strengthen you-or rather so that we may be mutually encouraged by each other's faith, both yours and mine" (Romans 1:11b-12).
First Statement - Romans 9 in Context
Any proper exegesis of a Biblical passage must begin by putting aside our presuppositions and examining the passage within context. By saying this, I want to begin my discussion of Romans 9 by examining two things.
First, of course, we want to see what Paul is saying in Romans 9 within the narrative context of his letter and how this particular passage fits within Paul's larger thesis that he is presenting to the Romans.
As I do this, I also want to examine the historical context in which the author and the audience dwell and their basic paradigm or view of the covenant community that they would have had as they read this text. A key principle of exegesis is that a text cannot mean something to me that was not intended for the original audience. So we need to examine at least some basic aspects of how the audience would have heard the text and what Paul was getting at within his historical context.
Paul's Overall Agenda in Romans
As Paul begins his dialogue in the book of Romans, he presents what I would call his primary thesis statement for his argument in Romans 1:16-17 -
16) For I am not ashamed of the gospel; it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 17) For in it the righteousness of God is revealed through faith for faith; as it is written, "The one who is righteous will live by faith."
I call this an argument, because any logical presentation that has premises, claims, and conclusions (or resolutions) is simply that - a logical argument for a case that needs proving.
In the case of Romans, Paul is dealing with a problem that has manifested itself historically in the church as documented in the book of Acts and which Paul consistently deals with in his letter to other churches. For Paul, there has been a change in the covenant community that has met resistance by the established community. That is, Paul is dealing with the issue of the entry of Gentiles into the covenant community, which he now recognizes as the church.
This is a common theme in the letters of Paul -
1. The letter to the Galatians presents one of Paul earliest arguments for this, culminating in that well known assertion that "there is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to the promise." (Galatians 3:28-29).
2. In his letter to the Ephesians, he tells the Gentile believers that "now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14) For he is our peace; in his flesh he has made both groups into one and has broken down the dividing wall, that is, the hostility between us" (Ephesians 2:13-14).
Why was this an issue for the Jewish believers in Christ? To understand this, we need to understand the Jewish concept of the covenant community. And we need to see this from the Jewish perspective for two reasons:
1. Paul and almost all of the writers of the New Testament were Jewish. He comes out of this tradition and his writing will be consistent with it. It is simply part of his worldview, which has been expanded in Christ.
2. If Christianity is the successor to Judaism in terms of the covenant relationship that humanity has with God, it must be consistent with the concept of the inheritance of the promise that is found in Judaism. Christianity completes Judaism. It does not usurp it.
To understand the argument that Paul will present in Romans and the nature of the conflict he is dealing with, then, it seems we must first delve briefly into the Jewish mindset on how salvation worked.
I like the way N. T. Wright states this (Wright, N. T., The New Testament and the People of God, (Fortress Press, Minneapolis, 1992), 457.) -
'The basic Jewish answer to the question, "How is the creator dealing with evil within his creation?" was of course that he had called Israel.'
While Jewish thought and religious practice varied in the first century, the concept of election held by Jewish writers was equivalent to being in the covenant community with God. That is, God had elected Israel or a sub-group (the remnant) within Israel to carry the promises of God and also as a means of dealing with evil in this world. The covenant people were "saved" from this world by being set apart as the people of God. The work that God started with Adam and Eve was renewed in Abraham.
Individuals in the community were the elect simply because of their inclusion in the covenantal community. Indeed, there are phrases within Jewish writings that place God's election of a people side by side with phrases emphasizing the free will of individuals. As noted in the scrolls of Qumran, human choice was combined with God's election and there were "those who volunteer to join the elect of God." The members of a community were called the elect and community were composed of "all those who had freely devoted themselves."
While the Essene communities were monastic and extreme, they held to the basic Jewish concept of election. In their mind, voluntary entry into their community was entry into the elect.
(Note: See also James Dunn, Jesus Remembered, for addition information on this aspect of Jewish election as a whole.)
This corporate concept also was held by other Jewish sects, such as the Pharisees, and was common to Jewish thought.
Does this perspective translate over into Christianity? Absolutely! In fact, the focus of the New Testament discussions on election and covenant are to show that the covenant community has expanded to include those who are Gentiles.
N. T. Wright puts it this way -
"The early Christians, on the basis of everything we know of them from both within and without the canonical 'New Testament', accepted this answer… Israel's purpose had come to its head in Jesus' work, … Those who now belonged to Jesus' people were not identical with ethnic Israel, since Israel's history had reached its intended fulfillment; they claimed to be the continuation of Israel in a new situation…"
Paul's thesis statement in Romans 1:16-17 provides us with a simple direct statement of his intent for the entire discourse in this letter. His overall purpose in writing the letter is to provide the case and means for reforming the covenant community. It is within the frameworks of this Jewish covenantal thinking of community and Paul's thesis that we come to Romans 9.
Now, all arguments have three basic components that must be present:
1) A problem or issue is presented
2) A series of claims or evidences are presented related to that
3) A conclusion is drawn from the claims that relates to the problem at hand
In this section of Scripture, which really encompasses Romans 9 to 11, Paul is going to address the issue of how we are to understand the Jewish people - who were called "God's elect." In this passage Paul will examine the thesis that he has presented in the light of the Jewish perception that the covenant is restricted to the descendents of Abraham and those who follow the law. What Paul will show in Romans 9 then is that (to phrase his thesis somewhat differently) -
1. The uniqueness of the Jews as the physical descendents of Abraham is not a criterion for being a member of God's people.
2. Salvation is open to everyone who has faith.
This first point is presented in Paul's introduction to this chapter by focusing on the common Jewish belief that descent from Abraham is a requirement of covenant membership. This is found in the first five verses of Romans 9:
1) I am speaking the truth in Christ-I am not lying; my conscience confirms it by the Holy Spirit- 2) I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3) For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my own people, my kindred according to the flesh. 4) They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; 5) to them belong the patriarchs, and from them, according to the flesh, comes the Messiah, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.
This issue can be summarized as follows:
Paul's overwhelming concern for the Jews (his own people), to whom belongs the covenant, who are considered by the flesh to be the elect, is that they are lost. Consequently, there appears to be a failure of the covenant for Israel.
Paul then presents a series of claims or evidences (Romans 9:6-29) that ultimately must support the conclusion given by Paul. That conclusion is found in Romans 9.30-10:4 (keep in mind that the chapter divisions are somewhat artificial).
9:30) What then are we to say? Gentiles, who did not strive for righteousness, have attained it, that is, righteousness through faith; 31) but Israel, who did strive for the righteousness that is based on the law, did not succeed in fulfilling that law. 32) Why not? Because they did not strive for it on the basis of faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, 33) as it is written,
"See, I am laying in Zion a stone that will make people stumble, a rock that will make them fall, and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame."
10:1)Brothers and sisters, my heart's desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved. 2) I can testify that they have a zeal for God, but it is not enlightened. 3) For, being ignorant of the righteousness that comes from God, and seeking to establish their own, they have not submitted to God's righteousness. 4) For Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.
Paul's ultimate conclusion is that the Jews as a people - the covenant people - are lost because they did not submit to God's righteousness, which is found in the faith of Christ (10:3). Those who are saved, whether Jews or Gentiles, are those who have achieved righteousness by faith - by submitting to God's righteousness found in Christ.
Now, I want you to focus on this conclusion carefully. Nowhere in the conclusion does Paul indicate that individuals are elected to heaven or hell before their response of submitting to God's righteousness in Christ. Rather Paul is simply stating that Gentiles are saved by faith, and Jews who reject Christ are lost because THEY DID NOT SUBMIT to God's righteousness in Christ. People are saved because they respond by faith to God's act in Jesus Christ.
Therefore, having established Paul's issue and his conclusion to that issue, we can confidently state that this passage is not designed as an argument for pre-faith election of individuals in Christ. Rather the conclusion of Paul in this text specifically states that those who are lost are those who (to quote Paul) "have not submitted to God's righteousness". However, those who are saved, as Paul indicates of the Gentiles, are those who (again, quoting Paul) "have attained … righteousness through faith." In the second case, the response of faith has RESULTED IN the attainment of righteousness, not vice versa.
The various claims or evidences found between Paul's presentation of the issue and his conclusion (Romans 9:6-29) must OF NECESSITY support this conclusion in order for his argument to be coherent. We cannot examine these in isolation of this conclusion. Rather, they must be examined within context and support the entry of individuals into the covenant by their submission in faith to Christ.
How they support this argument will be presented very briefly in my next two statements.
Second Statement - Jacob and Esau
It could be argued that what I am calling the "evidences" or "claims" can stand alone as statements of faith and that while they fit into the overall argument that Paul is presenting, in themselves they have an internal integrity that allows them to be treated as sub-arguments. Indeed, we can see three such sub-arguments among the claims.
However, they cannot stand independently or be contradictory to the overall argument presented in the text of Romans 9. The conclusion to that argument states that the attainment of righteousness RESULTS FROM the act of faith.
Let me deal with one of these claims at this point - In Romans 9:6, Paul raises the issue of whether the word of God has failed.
6) It is not as though the word of God had failed. For not all Israelites truly belong to Israel, 7) and not all of Abraham's children are his true descendants; but "It is through Isaac that descendants shall be named for you." 8) This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as descendants. . 9) For this is what the promise said, "About this time I will return and Sarah shall have a son."
Notice how Paul phrases this as he quotes Genesis 18:14. The question is not about whether one person is saved above another. The question being posed is whether God has failed to fulfill the promise to Abraham concerning the covenant and his descendents. Every single book of the Pentateuch (what the Jews would understand as the Law), reiterates the promise of the land and the fact that he would be their God. It is also found in the histories, the writings, and prophets. Israel was told to look to Abraham as their root. The promise is re-affirmed in Jewish writings during the inter-testamental period as well.
So if salvation and the covenant are open to everyone, there is the appearance that God has not been faithful to his word - his word has failed. What Paul has to do to defend his conclusion is show that the promise is not restricted to those who are physically descended from Abraham. Therefore, he approaches the problem by simply saying that God had not chosen all the descendents of Abraham to carry the promise, but only the children of the promise - Isaac and then Jacob. If "the covenant people" is the way God is dealing with evil in this world, then God's promise of Isaac was that his people would serve this function. They would provide a blessing to the world. Specifically, God's promise to Abraham from the same passage that Paul quotes above, was "that Abraham shall become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him" (Genesis 18:18).
Paul's point here is simply that there is a difference between the children of the flesh and the children of the promise - which is the issue at stake here. The children of the promise are those who will provide the blessing. They are not necessarily the children of the flesh.
Paul goes on and gives a second illustration to prove his point using Jacob and Esau as the example.
10) Nor is that all; something similar happened to Rebecca when she had conceived children by one husband, our ancestor Isaac. 11) Even before they had been born or had done anything good or bad (so that God's purpose of election might continue, 12) not by works but by his call) she was told, "The elder shall serve the younger." 13) As it is written,
"I have loved Jacob,
but I have hated Esau."
Now many people have misunderstood this text. Some have developed the belief that God literally hated the individual Esau. Yet if we examine it historically, we will see that this is not the case. The only thing that is truly said to Rebecca in Genesis 25 is this:
23) And the LORD said to her,
"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."
Here the statement if very simply - there are two nations that are going to come from Rebecca and the elder brother will server the younger (who will be stronger). That the covenant promise passed to Jacob is not to be disputed. His descendents would carry the blessing to the world. However, we know from Genesis 33 that Jacob and Esau were reconciled and that both received physical blessing from God and from each other. Jacob simply became the bearer for the promise. In fact, Jacob partially fulfills this choosing of God by bringing blessing to Esau!
Where then does Paul get this statement about God loving Jacob and hating Esau? The statement "I have loved Jacob, but I have hated Esau" comes approximately 1500 years later and does not refer to the individuals, but to two nations - Israel (then a Persian colony) and Edom. The text is taken from the prophet Malachi and concerns the oppression of post-exilic Israel by the Edomites. God is simply re-affirming that they are the covenant people, and their return to the land is part of his plan for them, and that he will protect them. But we must keep in mind that this statement CANNOT be taken as a foreordained decree of election because it is a consequence of God's choice, not a premise to that choice. Historically, it comes, in time, 1500 years after the birth of Jacob and Esau.
How then does this statement fit into the argument for Gentile acceptance into the covenant? Paul is simply stating that God has the right to choose people OUTSIDE of their ethnic or nationalistic heritage. While the Edomites were descended from Abraham, they were not part of the covenant people. From an ethnic perspective (which is the way Paul is presenting the argument), in order for Edomites to become part of that covenant, they would have to enter into Israel (or the Jewish people) by the act of circumcision. . .
READ AND DISCUSS THE ENTIRE ARTICLE HERE: (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?p=962037#post962037)