Romans 9: Part Five
Alright. Here we go again. Just by way of review, in Romans 9, Paul faces an objection to his gospel--the unbelief of the Jews. In the Old Testament, God had given the Jews several promises of blessing that seemed to guarantee their salvation. And yet, if Paul's gospel was true, then the majority of the Jews were accursed, separated from Christ. So Paul must answer the question of whether God's word (that is His verbally expressed intention to bless Israel) had failed? Paul adamantly denies this possibility.
Redefinition
Instead, Paul's answer to this question is to redefine how we understand Israel.
"For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel" (9:6 ESV).
In this radical redefinition, Paul narrows Israel to include only the children of the promise as opposed to the children of the flesh. Using Isaac and Ishmael, and Jacob and Esau as types, he then demonstrates his case. God considers only the children of the promise to be recipients of His blessings. Thus, the children of flesh were excluded from the get-go. (If you're curious about how I understand these terms, check out my previous posts on the subject.)
The Justice of God
Thus, a new objection emerges. Is God unjust for acting in this way? Paul writes,
"What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means!" (9:14 ESV).
It's important for us to examine just why the question of God's justice comes up. In the previous section, Paul has argued that only the children of promise have been named as God's children, and that the children of the flesh are not entitled to the covenant blessings that are mentioned in v. 4-5. The Jewish objector could then possibly question God's tactics here. Is God being unfair for choosing to give the blessings only to the children of promise? Is such an action unrighteous? Is God acting in a manner unfaithful to His covenant promises? Again Paul fiercely denies such a possibility.
God's Mercy
Paul then goes on to give two illustrations that demonstrate God's justice in His actions toward Israel. Each of these illustrations is introduced with the word "for." This indicates that they are opposite sides to the same coin. For right now, we're only going to look at the first side of the coin. Check out v. 15-16.
"For he says to Moses, 'I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.' So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy" (ESV).
Paul's answer to this question is to demonstrate that this radical redefinition is completely consistent with God's actions in the past. In fact, God told Moses that He is the One who gets to decide where His mercy goes. As the giver of mercy, God decides who receives mercy and who doesn't. And since God is the very source of compassion and mercy, it is not unfair for Him to decide that only the children of promise are entitled to His blessings. We don't get to make that decision. He does.
Now how does this section apply to us? Well, it's pretty popular today to think that God is obligated to be merciful to anyone who is a good person. Some people insists that Jesus isn't the only way to heaven and that good Muslims, Jews, and Buddhists are also entitled to God's mercy and covenantal blessings. However, this is not the Christian message. It's God who gets to decide who receives His mercy and who doesn't. Man does not get to decide. This is how I understand the phrase in v. 16, "So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy." In other words, it's God's prerogative to decide who receives His mercy, and not ours. And God has decided that mercy is centered in Jesus Christ. This is because God has called the children of the promise His children as opposed to the children of the flesh.
Redefinition
Instead, Paul's answer to this question is to redefine how we understand Israel.
"For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel" (9:6 ESV).
In this radical redefinition, Paul narrows Israel to include only the children of the promise as opposed to the children of the flesh. Using Isaac and Ishmael, and Jacob and Esau as types, he then demonstrates his case. God considers only the children of the promise to be recipients of His blessings. Thus, the children of flesh were excluded from the get-go. (If you're curious about how I understand these terms, check out my previous posts on the subject.)
The Justice of God
Thus, a new objection emerges. Is God unjust for acting in this way? Paul writes,
"What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means!" (9:14 ESV).
It's important for us to examine just why the question of God's justice comes up. In the previous section, Paul has argued that only the children of promise have been named as God's children, and that the children of the flesh are not entitled to the covenant blessings that are mentioned in v. 4-5. The Jewish objector could then possibly question God's tactics here. Is God being unfair for choosing to give the blessings only to the children of promise? Is such an action unrighteous? Is God acting in a manner unfaithful to His covenant promises? Again Paul fiercely denies such a possibility.
God's Mercy
Paul then goes on to give two illustrations that demonstrate God's justice in His actions toward Israel. Each of these illustrations is introduced with the word "for." This indicates that they are opposite sides to the same coin. For right now, we're only going to look at the first side of the coin. Check out v. 15-16.
"For he says to Moses, 'I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.' So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy" (ESV).
Paul's answer to this question is to demonstrate that this radical redefinition is completely consistent with God's actions in the past. In fact, God told Moses that He is the One who gets to decide where His mercy goes. As the giver of mercy, God decides who receives mercy and who doesn't. And since God is the very source of compassion and mercy, it is not unfair for Him to decide that only the children of promise are entitled to His blessings. We don't get to make that decision. He does.
Now how does this section apply to us? Well, it's pretty popular today to think that God is obligated to be merciful to anyone who is a good person. Some people insists that Jesus isn't the only way to heaven and that good Muslims, Jews, and Buddhists are also entitled to God's mercy and covenantal blessings. However, this is not the Christian message. It's God who gets to decide who receives His mercy and who doesn't. Man does not get to decide. This is how I understand the phrase in v. 16, "So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy." In other words, it's God's prerogative to decide who receives His mercy, and not ours. And God has decided that mercy is centered in Jesus Christ. This is because God has called the children of the promise His children as opposed to the children of the flesh.
posted by Daniel | 4:45 PM
15 Comments:
Daniel,
I tried to call you today. Jeez.
Anyways, I was wondering if you would try to get a hold of a copy of this Romans study/commentary and comment on it: http://conciliarpress.bizhosting.com/the_epistle_to_the_romans.html
Thanks. Levi
And God has decided that mercy is centered in Jesus Christ. This is because God has called the children of the promise His children as opposed to the children of the flesh.
Do you mean to say that God has decided to give mercy to specific individuals, or to an unspecific group of those who are ‘centered in Jesus Christ’? That is, do ‘the children of promise’ refer to a faceless mass of people who will come to Christ; the fact that they ‘come to Christ’ being the cause for the showing of mercy, OR, do the ‘children of promise’ refer to specific individuals –the mercy being the cause for them coming to Christ?
Nathan,
I somewhat addressed this question in part four of the series. You might read over at that again.
I understand the term "the children of the promise" in connection with Galatians 3-4. Look at these passages.
26You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, 27for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
28Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. 29At that time the son born in the ordinary way persecuted the son born by the power of the Spirit. It is the same now. 30But what does the Scripture say? "Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman's son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman's son." 31Therefore, brothers, we are not children of the slave woman, but of the free woman.
To answer your question though, I believe that Paul uses the term to refer to a specific group filled with specific individuals who trust in Jesus Christ.
You write, "The fact that they ‘come to Christ’ being the cause for the showing of mercy, OR, do the ‘children of promise’ refer to specific individuals –the mercy being the cause for them coming to Christ?"
I consider both options to be true. Mercy is needed for people to come to Christ and God shows more mercy as a result of coming to Christ.
Thanks for the dialogue.
So if mercy is needed to come to Christ, clearly this passage says that God shows mercy to whomever he wills, correct? Which would rule out Him showing mercy to every single man without exception, correct? (saving mercy, not general mercy as in health and wealth)
Yeah, but that's not the issue that Paul's addressing in Romans 9 at least as I understand the passage.
The issue is that unbelieving Jews could possibly object to Paul's gospel saying that God is being unfair in only chosing the children of promise to receive His covenant blessings, blessings that should result in salvation. In other words, I understand v. 16 as dealing with God's right to choose the terms of His mercy (i.e. faith and not works).
That's why I used the illustration of universalism today. The universalist believes that God's unfair if he doesn't show His saving mercy to anyone that's a fairly good person. V. 16 combats that idea. God decides the terms of mercy, not us.
Of course, in choosing the terms of mercy, this ultimately results in God choosing a community of individuals that matchs up to these terms (conditional election).
Yeah, but that's not the issue that Paul's addressing in Romans 9 at least as I understand the passage.
My view, as you probably know, is that Paul is addressing specific, personal salvation in this chapter. And this is based on the context of verses 3 and 6 (salvific, personal not corporate) that never changes, the personal pronouns used throughout (‘him who wills’), and the specific individuals Paul uses to demonstrate these truths.
In other words, I understand v. 16 as dealing with God's right to choose the terms of His mercy (i.e. faith and not works).
This does not make sense to me given the personal pronouns used. If Paul was talking about a plan of salvation, or a system, I do not think ‘him who wills’ would be used to describe the object of ‘God who shows mercy’.
Of course, in choosing the terms of mercy, this ultimately results in God choosing a community of individuals that matchs up to these terms (conditional election).
How does this view of ‘conditional election’ coincide with verse 11, which incidentally, describes the ‘promise’ as: “for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls”. That is, to say that God foresaw good deeds when purposing His election denies this sentence.
I addressed some of your comments in my previous posts about Romans 9. You might want to look over those again esp. those on v. 6-13. I would be interested in your thoughts on those posts.
When I said that's not issue, I didn't mean that salvation is not the issue. I meant that pre-regenerating grace or mercy is not the issue. I agree that grace is needed for someone to respond to Christ. I just don't think that this is what Paul means here in v. 15-16 by the term "mercy". This mercy involves being the recipients of God's covenant blessings mentioned in v. 4-5. Of course, these blessings involve salvation. Otherwise, the fact that Israel is accursed wouldn't be a problem. Thus, being elected means going to heaven and not being elected involves eternal condemnation. I hope that's clear.
As far as v. 16 goes, look the pronoun "it." We need to supply an antecedent. The best candidate for the job is "God's decision to have mercy." We get that from v. 15. Thus, the statement looks like this.
"So then it [God's decision to have mercy]does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy."
This means that the decision of on whom God should have mercy does not rest in the will of man or the efforts of man, but rather it rests with God as the Giver of mercy.
The unbelieving Jews thought that they get to decide who God should have mercy towards. Paul insisted to the contrary.
Ok Daniel, I took the time to read your Romans posts carefull. Here are some quick thoughts on your Romans series, beginning with the first installment:
The very heart of Calvinism is built around a particular interpretation of Romans 9.
Well Romans 9 it explains it in clear terms. But I would argue that the heart of Calvinism is found in John 6, which incidentally, nobody here has been able to actually stay in the text and refute the Calvinist interpretation without changing ‘no one’ to ‘everyone’ and ‘all that the Father gives’ to ‘all that make a choice’.
This interpretation holds that God unconditionally elects some people to go to heaven and unconditionally determines that some people go to hell.
Again, this is based on the crystal clear text of Ephesians 1:11 -In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will,” That is, putting conditions such as ‘our will’ into this understanding clearly contradicts the text. This is one of the many texts that are straightforward and clear, but some still attempt to explain them away by going outside of the passage.
However, I also know that my personal feelings don't determine the meaning of God's Word
Amen; that is the key to understanding all of this. Like I have said before, election doesn’t seem ‘fair’ to me either. But I have no real understanding of ‘fair’ since I am a sinner separated from a holy God.
God's word is identical to His electing purpose, since God's word is the verbal expression of His purposes… The problem is that these privileges seem to guarantee the salvation of Israel.
Paul explains that from the beginning the promise was not for ‘all of Israel’, as in, every Israelite without exception. But rather, that the Word has always taught that the ‘word of promise’ was according to the purpose of God’s election which is seen in the choosing of Jacob over Esau before either one had sinned. (Thus, foreknowledge of this ‘choosing to love and choosing to hate’ can be ruled out.) Paul is not introducing any new doctrine here, he is simply saying ‘you guys misunderstood, it’s always been according to who God has chosen to love and hate’.
Oh, I see you got to that: Paul's answer is clear. Not every Israelite is entitled to the promises spelled out in the Word of God. Not all of ethnic Israel is a part of spiritual Israel. The privileges listed in v. 4-5 were not for every Jew. -But do not miss the example Paul gives, the fact that foreseen goodness is not the deciding factor, and that it has always been according to election –things haven’t changed one bit.
This, of course, means that the gospel is true even if the majority of Jews reject Christ.
Well, this stands in contrast to the argument that the word of God has taken no effect. That is, ‘look guys, the promises have been fulfilled; it’s been election since day one –you just overlooked it. Don’t misinterpret the Word.’
Paul is not necessarily discussing the salvation of the individuals that he mentions in his illustrations.
I simply see that as an attempt to get around the text’s clear reading. For if eternal salvation of Jacob and Esau were not the focus then the objection in verse 14 would have no real effect. If it weren’t talking about salvation then the repeated use of the words ‘mercy’ and ‘compassion’ is puzzling. If it were not talking about eternal destines, then the example of the potter and the clay is left dangling, and the word ‘destruction’ must be interpreted as something else since the context does not change. All of this in the context of ‘I wish myself to be accursed for my brethren according to the flesh’ connects things quite clearly. If it wasn’t talking about salvation, then Paul wouldn’t have mentioned wishing himself to be accursed over the purposes of God.
Cranfield says: the reference is rather to the mutual relations of the two nations in history.
No, the Exodus passage is talking about two nations. Paul has the authority to use an example in the OT and to apply it in a different way other than the original meaning. He goes deeper than that and discusses two individual persons (and subsequently, two more). Again, ‘all of Israel is not of Israel’ makes it clear that Paul is not talking about nations but rather individuals and their hearts. Furthermore, aren’t nations made up of people?
Thus, the promises in Genesis from which Paul gets his illustrations deal primarily with physical blessings (land, family, and prosperity). So we shouldn't stretch the illustrations too far in trying to find a direct correspondence between Paul's illustrations and his thesis.
There is nothing in the text to support this notion; speculation only. But the next few paragraphs all hinge on this interpretation; something that I believe cannot be deduced from Romans 9. Again, if temporal blessings were the key here, then the strong contentions, particular wording, and the examples of ‘vessels prepared’ do not flow with the passage so that it even makes sense.
These promises of blessing seemed to guarantee Israel's salvation.
Wait a second, if these promises seemed to guarantee Israel’s salvation, then on the basis of what do you turn around and say ‘oh, Jacob, Esau and so on are only talking about temporal blessings’. Where does the context lead to that change?
God's promises guarantee Israel's salvation, and the majority of Jews is not saved…In other words, has God's Word (His promised blessings for Israel) failed? (v. 6) No, it's hasn't. In fact, God's intention to bless Israel (His purpose in election) stands.
Again, you seem to flip back and forth between salvation and ‘bless Israel’ seemingly at your own leisure. If it starts with salvation, where in the text does it jump to blessings? And if it doesn’t start with salvation, besides the later portions making no sense, why does Paul discuss being accursed?
God never intended to bless every physical descendant of Abraham.
And again, where in the text does it switch? I would propose that from Rom 2 we know that that ‘all of Israel’ means inwardly, circumcision of the heart, which is a term for salvation. So if in verse 6b he says ‘not all are of Israel’, and then he immediately jumps to the example of Jacob and Esau, then he most certainly is not describing temporal blessings, favoritism, or anything of the like. This coupled with the opening statement of being accursed clearly sets the context in which does not change throughout the passage.
Galatians 4:28-31
Off the subject a little, but my position is further strengthened by this text. Verse 29 says: But, as he who was born according to the flesh then persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, even so it is now. (NKJV)
I would venture to say, though there is nothing definitive in the text itself, that the symbolism of ‘born according to the Spirit’ falls right in line with John 1:12-13, John 8:47, and 1 John 5:1 which identify the one who believes as ‘born of God’. If you look at the grammar in 1 John 5:1 ‘believes’ is in the present participle, and ‘born of God’ is in the perfect. Which means that ‘born of God’ precedes ‘believes’.
Throughout Galatians, Paul compares two types of people, those who trust in themselves for salvation and those who trust in Jesus for salvation.
How did we get back to the issue of salvation? In addition, if Paul starts by discussing things that are personal (accursed; not all of Israel), then where does he move to something corporate such as a ‘plan of salvation’? This is coupled with the fact that blessings are intermixed with salvation seemingly without any indication in the text.
The first group Paul allegorically represents with Ishmael and the second group Paul associates with Isaac. (Now it must be clear. As the interpreter, I don't have the right to allegorize the text. However, it is different if Paul, as the author, allegorizes the text).
I don’t agree this is an allegory, not even by Paul (even though he has the right to do that). But I don’t have time to get into that.
This is exactly what Paul does. He uses Ishmael as a type representing the children of the flesh, those who rely on their works in order to please God. And he uses Isaac as a type to represent the children of the promise, those who rely on faith in Christ to please God.
Paul has already made it abundantly clear in the previous 8 chapters that works cannot please God. I do not believe he is visiting this issue once again.
The similarities are clear. Paul uses the same language and the same individuals as types (only this time he adds Jacob and Esau as another illustration).
This does not coincide in any way with the example of Moses and Pharaoh. When did Pharaoh ever try to please God with his works?
Is God being unfair for choosing to give the blessings only to the children of promise? Is such an action unrighteous?
I cannot reconcile Paul’s audience as seriously questioning whether God is ‘just’ if these were external blessings and not eternal salvation. The obvious fact that God ‘giveth and taketh away’ is expounded again and again in the OT. Ecclesiastes for example, deals with this issue in detail. There is no real foundation for people objecting to God giving earthly blessings to whom He wishes; the issue of God choosing to give salvation, eternal destinies, to whom He wishes, clearly makes the most sense and clearly fits into the passage without a hitch.
Overall Daniel, I do not think I completely understand your jumping from 'blessings' to 'salvation' throughout the text. If I understand you correctly, I cannot even begin to agree with your interpretation.
SDG
Nathan,
Thanks for your response and time. As you know, I disagree with your understanding of John 6 and Ephesians 1:11. However, that is not the subject of this post. Maybe later, in a different post, we can debate those texts.
Now to your question. What about the "jump" between blessings and salvation?
I insist that these blessings in v. 4-5 involve salvation. That is the thrust of the text.
However, I want to qualify that statement. Let me start with Galatians 4 and then I'll come back to Romans 9. In Galatians 4, Paul uses the story of Isaac and Ishmael typologically. At the beginning of the pericope, Paul even announces that he is speaking "allegorically."
Isaac and Ishmael are thus types or illustrations that Paul believes illustrate a deeper reality. The physical situation of Isaac represents the spiritual situation of believers. Physically speaking, Isaac was the child of promise in Abraham's family. This means he was chosen by God to be used for a certain purpose in the lineage of Christ.
In the other hand, as a type, Isaac represents the children of promise, those who trust in Jesus Christ for salvation. This is the spiritual dimension to the story. Paul then uses the type as a part of his polemic against the Judaizers.
(Personally, allegories make me kinda nervous. However, this is Paul's Spirit-inspired allegory in Galatians. So I got to deal with it.)
Since Galatians 4 uses the same type of language and the same characters, I use it to help us understand Romans 9. I believe that Paul is again speaking typologically.
The stories of Isaac and Ishmael and Jacob and Esau need to be understood as types. This is not foreign to the books of Romans. In ch. 5, Paul clearly uses Adam as a type of Christ. So in Romans 9, I believe that Isaac and Jacob are types that represent believers. And Ishmael and Esau are types that represent unbelievers.
So, when just looking at the physical dimension of these stories, we should come the conclusion that they deal with physical blessings and the destiny of different nations. (The quote from Malachi originally refers the nations of Israel and Edom. Paul reapplies it since it makes a great point about his types.)
However, when we look at the stories typologically, we see that they illustrate great spiritual truth. Isaac and Jacob represent the children of the promise (i.e. believers). Ishmael and Esau represent the children of the flesh (i.e. unbelievers).
Thank you for your well thought-out response.
Since Galatians 4 uses the same type of language and the same characters, I use it to help us understand Romans 9. I believe that Paul is again speaking typologically.
A)Paul does not tie Galatians 4 into this text (thus, we cannot take this typologically)
B)Paul explains what the promise means in verse 9, why would we then look somewhere else?
C)The examples of Moses and Pharaoh do not make any sense whatsoever with this interpretation.
When I see 'all is not of Israel', I am drawn to the same book, chapter 2 where Paul also eludes to this truth. What is the context of it? Personal salvation, it runs consistently throughout the chapter and perfectly explains the rest of his words.
I could say more but I've already said it in my previous post. But I certainly think that exegesis is not being used as a hermenutic. You tried to deny it, but clearly you jump from salvation to blessings to salavation plans to those who trust in Jesus and so on seemingly at your own leisure. The thought is consistent and continuous throughout the entire chapter, it is not meant to re-state things he has already said, but rather it has meant to lead into Rom 10-11. You have made it redundant and confusing and have essentially left the latter portion of the chapter dangling, making no real sense of 'prepared for destruction' and the like.
I enjoy discussing it with you but I cant even begin to say that your interpretation holds any weight at all.
A. The terminology in Galatians 4 and Romans 9 is similar. Both deal with Isaac and Ishmael. Both deal with "the children of the promise." We should compare Paul's letters to gain a better understanding of his theology. Both letters deal with the Judaizers' interaction with Paul's gospel. Both address the tension between the circumcised and the uncircumcised. Galatians and Romans both use a contrast between the "flesh" and the "Spirit".
B. The terms "the flesh" and "the promise" are very significant in Pauline literature and they shouldn't be overlooked. While v. 9 gives insight into this significant term, we should also examine the term in other locations.
C. I haven't even covered Pharoah and Moses yet.
You write, "But I certainly think that exegesis is not being used as a hermenutic. " What do you mean by this statement? Here's how I understand those terms.
Hermeneutics is theory. Exegesis is the practice of that theory. In baseball terms, hermeneutics is the gameplan. Exegesis is how the gameplan is actually worked out.
It's important to notice that these terms go hand-in-hand. As Tom Wright says, "Practice without theory is blind. Theory without practice is mute."
So I'm not really sure what you're saying. Please clarify.
I’m not advocating a refusal to look at other texts when clarifying Paul’s meaning, and I’m not even advocating a refusal to look at the Galatians passage when interpreting this text. However, we cannot run away to another text and nullify the words used in Romans 9 in an attempt to get around the plain wording of the text. Yes, Paul talks about the promise in other passages, but he explains what he means in THIS passage in verse 9-11. Yes Paul talks about ‘plans of salvation’ and uses very similar wording, but similar wording does not mean we nullify the plain rendering and the entire context of the verses and the chapter as a whole. Yes the OT talks about external blessings by using the same people involved and the same language, but once again, we cannot insert this into the passage and thus nullify what Paul clearly says. As I said, the passage does not switch from salvation to blessings to plans of salvation back to blessings back to God knows what without any indication in the text! We cannot determine the subject of Paul's words in Romans 9 by running over to Galatians 4 -that is esigesis. The subject stays the same throughout, so you need to decide what that subject is and stick to it. Otherwise, unless you can point to something in the text that indicates a change of subject, then your interpretation is erroneous.
A Hermeneutic is not a theory, it is a method or a process of interpretation. Thus, when you fail to use exegesis to determine the meaning of a text, I say you are failing to use a consistent and sound hermeneutic.
And once again, Paul is talking about personal salvation here and I challenge you to show where the context suddenly changes:
V3 -Personal salvation
V6 -Personal salvation
Where does the context suddenly change?
V9-11 -individuals used as an example (personal)
V11 -'Election' always refers to salvation
V14 -has no real thrust whatsoever if it isnt talking about salvation.
V16 -'wills', 'mercy', refer to personal salvation
V17 and on -Personal example again
V18 -'hardens', another term referring to salvation
V19 -hardly makes sense if v18 isnt referring to eternal events
V20 -the 'thing formed', not the 'nation formed'. Personal again
V22 -'destruction' -eternal again
V23 -'mercy', 'glory', again salvific terms
There is a irrefutable line of thought here, the passage flows very smooth and fluent throughout.
Nathan,
Don't you think that you're splitting hairs with the "theory vs. method" stuff? A theory is an idea of how to do something. A method is an idea of how to do something.
Of course, exegesis involves comparing how an author uses a word in other contexts. The rule of thumb is usage determines meaning. This means that we need to examine the context of that specific usage and other contexts where the same author uses that word.
So while v. 9 is definitely relevant to understanding the meaning of the word "promise," it shouldn't be the only text that we use to discover the Pauline meaning. The phrase "the children of the promise" is significant in Paul's theology so we should examine other usages. Same thing with the word "flesh." It's a powerful concept in Paul's thinking. Examine other usages to determine the meaning.
It seems to me you are the one splitting hairs over my use of the word hermeneutic.
My main point is that your view has no consistency and no credibility with the actual wording. Yes we let scripture interpret scripture, but we do that after we exegete the text and determine its firm and consistent meaning in that context. You cannot exegete Romans 9 and then nullify that exegesis with Galatians 4 (simply because similar wording is used –even though Paul is clearly making two completely separate points).
Essentially, when you do that you come up with a theory that contradicts the clear exegesis of Rom 9.
In summation, I see your view of this passage as “I know it can’t mean what it says it means, so we must go to any extreme possible to come up with a coherent argument”. Same with John 6, your rejection of clear words like ‘no one’ and ‘all’ are obvious to any studious reader. Couple this with Romans 9 and your rejection of ‘it does not depend on the man who runs’ (note: how can nations run?), and ‘mercy…prepared…destruction etc’ make your error quite clear. As graceful as I can say it, your interpretation is shown to be erroneous by the actual words of the text itself. Your not rejecting my interpretation, your rejecting the wording itself.
SDG
I'm sorry that you think that I'm splitting hairs over the meaning of hermeneutic. I just wanted to understand your comment. I wanted to know if you disagreed with my exegesis or my hermeneutic. The terms are similar in meaning, but not synonymous. I take it that you disagree with my exegesis. We can talk hermeneutics later.
I agree that no one can come to Jesus without the work of the Father in his life. This means that "no one" means "no one." Everyone needs the drawing work of the Father in order to come to Jesus. I have no problem with the term "no one."
I'm not sure what you mean by "all" in John 6.
I don't think that 9:16 refers to nations. I never said that I did. Please don't misrepresent me. I said that it refers whether God or man gets to decide who are the objects of His mercy. Are the believers or workers the object of His mercy? God gets to decide.
Galatians and Romans go hand-in-hand. Any interpretations of Galatians that doesn't make good sense of Romans is false, and vice versa.
I think that destruction refers to God's wrath (i.e. hell). I think that mercy refers to God's saving mercies.
Post a Comment
<< Home