|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Romans 9 v22-23
|
Tuffty
Apprentice
# 16988
|
Posted
I have serious questions about this passage. The concept that some people are prepared for destruction in order that the fact that Godsaves a select few is made even more wonderful in contrast - well, I suggest that's hard for anyone to swalow if they truly think about it.
Thoughts?
Posts: 6 | From: Belfast | Registered: Mar 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
Tuffty, welcome to the ship and to Kerygmania.
When you want to discuss a specific Bible passage, please provide the text or a link to it. People do not always have a Bible handy when they read this board.
Here is a link to Romans 9:22-23.
Moo, Kerygmania host
Posts: 16861 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tuffty
Apprentice
# 16988
|
Posted
Big apologies to all. Thanks for adding the link.
Posts: 6 | From: Belfast | Registered: Mar 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
A few quick points:
1. Paul's question is hypothetical. He's responding to the challenge in v19 about God's sovereignty making human responsibility meaningless by saying "so what if we didn't have free will - it still wouldn't give us the right to talk back to God". The point is that we should hold to both divine sovereignty and human responsibility.
2. It ain't about what's easy to swallow - it's about what's true. You find what's true, then you swallow it. End of.
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4487 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tuffty
Apprentice
# 16988
|
Posted
If only it were as simple as that.
Posts: 6 | From: Belfast | Registered: Mar 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
Well, yes. I tend to remember that Paul's question is only hypothetical and the existence of free will is a topic of debate in neuroscience as well.
Then I get on with affirming both God's sovereignty and human responsibility, and figure I'm unlikely to make much progress trying to figure out exactly how they connect.
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4487 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
Tuffty,
I wonder if Paul is really being quite as strict about this as appears? I'm trying to dodge his rhetoric, which is classic, to see what essential point he was trying to make and wonder if the following route is valid?
[1] These two verses (22-23) are part of the section where Paul is tackling the subject of the people of Israel (essentially chapters 9-11). This opens up the possibility that his rhetorical questions deal with Israel, and in particular the distinction he makes in 9:6 - ...not all those descended from Israel are [truly] Israel.
[2] He gets to this point after having kicked off his letter with the whole of humanity in view (1:18) - God's anger is being revealed from heaven against all human ungodliness and unfaithfulness... In this wider section, the thrust of Paul's message is that unfaithfulness is a choice those who opt for it cannot later claim ignorance. Lack of repentance will lead to God's judgement one day (2:5) and Paul is clear that this principle applies to everyone Jew and Gentile alike.
[3] Now something must be wrong if having set out his stall this way from the beginning Paul then does an abrupt about-face in chapter 9 to say that, in fact, people have no choice at all and are either doomed or saved from the start. Something doesn't chime in unison here. I'm not convinced that chapters 9-11 were inserted by some later editor. Whoever came up with excuse seriously needs to get out more! Neither do I think it likely that Paul, who was a clear thinker and theologian, somehow lost the plot in chapter 9. So I have to look for another option.
[4] Paul has already introduced the issue of the people of Israel in distinction from Gentiles. In chapters 2 and 3 he tackles a question he anticipates his readers would have had from what he said thus far: If the human race is judged according to its faithfulness to God, then how about the Jews? They claim to be 'saved' by God's choice regardless of how they behave. Paul knocks this objection out of the way by asserting that faithfulness must be an internal, heart, thing. Mere observance of practice is not enough.
[5] Having made that point, Paul moves on to prove his point by reference to Abraham, Adam, and Christ, demonstrating the impact of his argument in chapter 8 faithfulness to God through Jesus removes the threat of God's angry condemnation.
[6] Paul now anticipates the next question: But then does that mean there's no hope for the Jews? If they cannot be 'saved' simply by observing their law, then surely they are all as good as dead? Paul makes the point that, while it is true that the majority of Jews have missed the point, there is always a remnant who stay true. The clue here, it seems to me, is that God will show mercy which is a covenant term connoting God's persistence in sticking to his side of the bargain (9:14-16). Once he had made a promise, he would stick by it. As for those among the people of Israel who persistently failed to realise their side of the bargain, God's judgement will one day fall (9:22). Good would come of this, though, because the delay in judgement meant the chance of calling for faithfulness among the Gentiles. Once again, this begins an equality of opportunity for both Jew and Gentile (9:24).
[7] Paul goes on in chapter 10 to repeat the point that the majority of Jews had ignored the need for true faithfulness to God and had instead refused to submit (10:3). This sounds like a human choice not an imposition. He winds up his Israel passage (chapters 9-11) in similar vein to chapters 5-8; God's promise to Israel is as firm as that to all creation and he will not give up on them. In Paul's reckoning, most of Israel lost the plot so that God could extend his message to the whole world, This in turn led to a reverse mission newly faithful Gentiles can now take God's message back to (envious) Israel.
Posts: 2271 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason Zarri
Apprentice
# 15248
|
Posted
Tuffty,
That passage might not mean that God predestines some people not to be saved. For a little later on Paul says:
quote:
25 So that you may not claim to be wiser than you are, brothers and sisters, I want you to understand this mystery: a hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. 26And so all Israel will be saved; as it is written,
Out of Zion will come the Deliverer;
he will banish ungodliness from Jacob.
27 And this is my covenant with them,
when I take away their sins.
28As regards the gospel they are enemies of God for your sake; but as regards election they are beloved, for the sake of their ancestors; 29for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. 30Just as you were once disobedient to God but have now received mercy because of their disobedience, 31so they have now been disobedient in order that, by the mercy shown to you, they too may now receive mercy. 32For God has imprisoned all in disobedience so that he may be merciful to all.
--Romans 11: 25-32 NRSV [footnotes omitted], http://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Romans+11
Note that the last sentence might imply universalism; i.e., that all will be saved.
--------------------
Check out the free studying resource Open Source Study Notes, where anyone can contribute their study notes: http://www.scholardarity.com/?page_id=1942
Posts: 11 | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I like the point about the hypotheticalness (is that a word?). This reminded me that today in Bible discussion group we had a salutary reminder that we don't have all the answers and are in no position to judge God, who does. The "what if" is pretty unpalatable, but it does serve the purpose of reminding us of our limitations. And that's useful knowledge.
--------------------
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 14360 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselm
Shipmate
# 4499
|
Posted
Not sure if this point has already been made, but it is helpful to realise that Paul is talking in corporate categories.
The issue at hand is the fact that God made promises to OT Israel, not gentiles, but it seems that Gentiles are the ones pouring into the Kingdom and Israel has kept itself out.
Isn't this a challenge to our understanding of God's faithfulness to his promises?
Can human unfaithfulness overpower God's ability to be faithful?
This is an important question given that Paul has just been affirming God's faithfulness as a foundation for our certain hope in the coming age (see Romans 8).
quote:
Jason Zarri posted, regarding Rom 11
Note that the last sentence might imply universalism; i.e., that all will be saved.
Don't think that Paul is talking universalism here; rather he is talking in, once again, corporate categories.
Paul is saying all PEOPLES/NATIONS will be saved (ie not just Jews, and not just gentiles), not all INDIVIDUALS will be saved.
--------------------
carpe diem domini
...seize the day to play dominoes?
Posts: 2523 | From: The Scriptorium | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
I don't think you can really understand Romans until you wrestle with the place of Israel in salvation.
Even from chapter 1 it is there - first for the Jew, then for the gentile.
My take on chapters 9-11 is that they're mostly autobiographical. Paul is struggling with the fact that he, a Jew, has believed in Jesus as the Messiah, but mostly the Jews have not. (Certainly all the first Christians were Jews but I mean they were still a minority of the Jewish race.) That fact doesn't fit with his eschatology (e.g. from Isaiah) looking for all nations to turn back to Israel.
So chapters 9-11 are him thinking about how all this will work out. And how this all squares with the teaching of the OT. He has believed in Christ, why not everyone else? How is God going to work this all out? He longs for his own people to turn to Christ.
[Having said all that, let's not go all dispensational and get out our Tim La Haye or Hal Lindsey books. I said the place of Israel in salvation history was key to understanding Romans, not that China is about to nuke Jerusalem in 666 minutes' time.]
Posts: 6834 | From: Sydney | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
footwasher
Shipmate
# 15599
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselm:
Not sure if this point has already been made, but it is helpful to realise that Paul is talking in corporate categories.
The issue at hand is the fact that God made promises to OT Israel, not gentiles, but it seems that Gentiles are the ones pouring into the Kingdom and Israel has kept itself out.
Isn't this a challenge to our understanding of God's faithfulness to his promises?
Can human unfaithfulness overpower God's ability to be faithful?
This is an important question given that Paul has just been affirming God's faithfulness as a foundation for our certain hope in the coming age (see Romans 8).
quote:
Jason Zarri posted, regarding Rom 11
Note that the last sentence might imply universalism; i.e., that all will be saved.
Don't think that Paul is talking universalism here; rather he is talking in, once again, corporate categories.
Paul is saying all PEOPLES/NATIONS will be saved (ie not just Jews, and not just gentiles), not all INDIVIDUALS will be saved.
I agree about the corporate nature of the deprivation of blessing , and gifting of mercy, but Israel did not keep itself out. They were intentionally kept out by the offensiveness of the gospel.
A motif seen here:
Genesis 37:7 NET
There we were, binding sheaves of grain in the middle of the field. Suddenly my sheaf rose up and stood upright and your sheaves surrounded my sheaf and bowed down to it!
Joseph's words were the truth, but they were offensive. But they were the cause of the friction that led to an accelerated growth of God's People. They intended it for bad, but God intended it for good, saving many.
And here:
Matthew 22:3 NET
He sent his slaves to summon those who had been invited to the banquet, but they would not come.
The pharisees were expecting a return to the Golden Age of Judaism, a second Davidic kingdom, a cleansing of the Temple, instead Jesus talked about an invitation to be suffering servants!
Because of Israel's refusal to attend the banquet, all nations were invited, so that God's original intention was accomplished (fill the banquet hall) . Sneaky!
Matthew 22:3, 9-10 NET
He sent his slaves to summon those who had been invited to the banquet, but they would not come. So go into the main streets and invite everyone you find to the wedding banquet. And those slaves went out into the streets and gathered all they found, both bad and good, and the wedding hall was filled(!) with guests.
--------------------
Ship's crimp
Posts: 782 | From: pearl o' the orient | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
