Romans 9

In the Beginning....
Recently I've been doing some thinking about Reformed theology since I've been reading a blog called Semper Reformanda. The very heart of Calvinism is built around a particular interpretation of Romans 9. This interpretation holds that God unconditionally elects some people to go to heaven and unconditionally determines that some people go to hell. Personally, I find this theology very troubling.

However, I also know that my personal feelings don't determine the meaning of God's Word; rather, I should try to understand what the author intended with his words. So I've decided to spend some time studying Romans 9 to see if this interpretation is exegetically justified. I should start by saying that I know that any student of the Bible brings into the text baggage: personal feelings, certain theological convictions, etc. However, our goal as faithful Bible students is to set aside our baggage and hear the author out. Admittedly, this is difficult; nevertheless, it should be our goal.

The Problem: Has God's Word Failed?
When starting our study of Romans 9, we must consider how this pericope fits into Paul's argument as a whole. Paul writes,

"I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit, that I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my 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, whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen" (NASB).

This paragraph brings up the problem that Paul will discuss in the next three chapters of Romans. Throughout his ministry, Paul often faced the most intense opposition from his own people. By and large, the Jewish people had rejected Christ. Instead of embracing the gospel of grace, the majority of the Jews continued to rely on works-based religion for salvation. Salvation was to be merited by circumcision and observing the Law. And for the most part, the Jews stood as enemies of the gospel of Christ (11:28). So according to Paul's gospel, the majority of Jewish people were under the anathema of God.

So ultimately, God's reliability was at stake. As Doug Moo writes in his NICNT volume, "Paul could not jettison these promises, for to do so would be to jettison the gospel" (550). If Paul's gospel nullified God's promises to Israel, then, to the Jewish objector, Paul's message was obviously not from God. After all, the O.T. promises seemed to guarantee the salvation of Israel. If God couldn't be trusted to keep His promises to the Jewish people, then how could others trust Him to keep the great promises found in the gospel? Remember that this section comes right off the heels of Romans 8 where Paul proclaims that nothing can separate God's people from His love. And yet the Jews might object that if the gospel was true, then, in fact, the majority of Jews, "God's chosen people," had been separated from God's love.

This is the objection that Paul spends the three next chapters answering. And in the coming weeks, we'll continue to look at his argument.