This is part of an ongoing series on Romans 9.1-13 where I’m contending that individual election and salvation is taught by the Apostle Paul, not the historical destiny of nations or corporate election.  To ensure that you get every post on this topic (Estimate 15-20); I encourage you to subscribe via RSS or E-mail below.

What was just explained by Paul (9.6b) is further explained in Romans 9.7, which reads,  

 Neither are they all children, because they are the seed of Abraham, but – “Through Isaac your seed will be called.”

Here Paul is reaffirming that not all of Israel are Israel, since they are the “seed,” the natural offspring of Abraham alone. 

Moreover, Paul, in quoting Gen 21.12 from the LXX (The Septuagint, which is the Greek translation of the Old Testament), states “but –Through Isaac your seed will be called.”  In observing this text, James D.G. Dunn rightly observes its meaning, saying,

Israelites should not need reminding that the line of covenant promise is not the same as the line of natural descent.  They themselves would not claim that Ishmael was within the covenant, despite his having been the circumcised by Abraham (Gen 17.23-27).  So, clearly, the beneficiaries of the covenanted blessings (vv 4-5), even on Jewish presuppositions, cannot be identified simply in terms of blood relationship and natural kinship… (547)

We can observe that not all of the Israelites will benefit from the divine privileges given (9.4-5) on the basis of their physical descent from Abraham, which has obviously been the case for them in this passage of Scripture (9.3).  Consequently, we can conclude, with John Piper, that “Something more must be true about a physical descendant if he is to be an heir of the covenant” (42). 

What we see here is this; just because someone was born into a Jewish family is not enough to ensure that they will inherit the covenantal promises of eternal life.  The same can also be said of people born into Christian families.   Just because your family is Christian does not mean you will automatically inherit eternal life. 

Is Paul Emphasizing Individual Election or the Historical Destiny of Nations?

Now that this has been settled, there are varying opinions between Reformers and non-Reformers alike as to the meaning of Romans 9.7.  The one main difference revolves around the following question:

Is Paul emphasizing individual election or the historical destinies of nations by including the Old Testament narrative? 

For example, Cranfield agrees that the “the word of God” (9.4-6a) is not based upon physical descent alone.  Conversely, he offers the following point as well,

But it is to be carefully noted that the Genesis narrative indicates explicitly god’s care for Ishmael (see Gen 21.13, 17-21: also 16.10-14; 17.20).  So we must not read into Paul’s argument any suggestion that Ishmael because he is not chosen to play a positive part in the accomplishment of God’s special purpose, is therefore excluded from the embrace of God’s mercy (229).

Is Cranfield right?  Is Ishmael to be included in the embrace of God’s mercy since he was not chosen?  The following 4 reasons are why I believe this is not the case.

4 Reasons Why I Think Cranfield Gets it Wrong   

The following 4 reasons explain why I disagree with Cranfield in that Ishmael is to not be excluded from the mercies of God. 

1. It is apparent that Cranfield has placed more emphasis upon the Old Testament narrative, rather than the train of thought presented by Paul.
2. It is written in the latter portion of Romans 9, mainly Rom. 9.14-18, that God is not obligated to express mercy to all, but rather exercises His freedom in granting mercy to whom He desires, as well as hardening whom He desires.
3. Paul’s focus is God’s choice of Isaac, in validating that physical descent alone does not benefit one to experience the redemptive privileges of Israel individual (Rom. 9.3-6a) (John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 10). 
4. Even though God promised to make Ishmael a great nation (Gen 16.10; 21.13, 18), it can be further observed that Ishmael was never promised that God would be His God and that Ishmael would be given the land of his sojourning as Isaac was(Gen 17.7,8) (John Piper, The Justification of God, 42). 

It is for these reasons listed above that I believe we cannot thrust the conclusion reached by Cranfield above.   The question of individual election and historical identities will be picked-up later as we look further into Romans 9.8.

Enjoy this post?  Consider sharing it with your friends with the Share/Shave below or Tweet above and subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS

When I look to purchase a commentary on any book of the Bible, I first browse a few websites to see what others recommend.

During my search, there are a few websites that I go too and highly recommend:

Ligonier Ministries

Desiring God Ministries 

Best Commentaries   

Reformed Books

I hope that this help you in your serach for the best commentaries. 

Question: Are there other websites that you would recommend?

Enjoy this post?  Consider sharing it with your friends with the Share/Shave below or Tweet above and subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS

This is part of an ongoing series on Romans 9.1-13 where I’m contending that individual election and salvation is taught by the Apostle Paul, not the historical destiny of nations or corporate election.  To ensure that you get every post on this topic (Estimate 15-20); I encourage you to subscribe via RSS or E-mail below.

Rom. 9.6

But it is not as though the word of God has failed.  For not all which are out of Israel, are Israel

At this point Paul explains the previous half-verse, by expressing, “For not all which are out of Israel, are Israel” (9.6b).  In this portion of the text, we observe a literary explanation why the “word of God” had not failed (9.6a) which is detected in his use of “but” (greek). 

What Paul is beginning to explain here is that an Israelite is not an automatic heir of the redemptive promises of God (Rom. 9.3-4) due to their natural descent from Israel.  In other words, just because every Israelite is not professing faith in Jesus Christ (Rom. 9.3) doesn’t mean that the “word of God” has failed because not every Israelite will be an heir to God’s promises (Rom. 9.4-5).    

In commenting upon this passage, John Murray had the following to say,

The purpose of this distinction is to show that the covenantal promise of God did not have respect to Israel after the flesh but to this true Israel and that, therefore, the unbelief and rejection of ethnic Israel as a whole in no way interfered with the fulfillment of God’s covenant purpose and promise…Now the interest is centered upon a coordinate facet of truth that not through natural descent are the promises inherited and that God’s covenant promise was not made so as to include all of ethnic Israel.  Thus the exclusion of Israelites from God’s covenant favor does not negate the word of the oath (The Epistle to Rome, 10). 

Even though I and others – with the Reformed Tradition – see this conclusion to be the natural reading of the text, there are varying opinions as to its meaning. 

A Differing Perspectives

Those beginning with a non-Reformed presupposition generally believe this passage has no such a meaning and that Paul was emphasizing “the character and mode rather than the fact of election” (James Dunn, 540).

Others, such as C.E.B. Cranfield

The point that Paul is making is that not all who are included in the comprehensive Israel are included also in the selective, special Israel.  But this does not mean what it has often been taken to mean – that only part of the Jewish people is the elect people of God (Romans: A Shorter Commentary, 227).

I understand these positions and they are tenable on the surface.  However, for the following reasons I do not believe that they are final and conclusive.  Let me briefly explain.

My Brief Response

First, to say that this passage has no bearing upon individual election is to overlook Paul’s current train of thought and the later context.  For instance, Paul continued his previous train of thought (Rom. 9.1-5) by addressing that the “word of God” – His redemptive promises to Israel – has not failed (9.6a), even though many Israelites are not placing their faith in Jesus Christ (Rom.  9.3). 

After providing examples to his position (Rom. 9.7-13) Paul says it is so that “God’s purpose according to His choice would stand” (Rom. 9.11) This is further supported in Paul’s response to his audiences anticipated rebuttals in Rom. 9.14, 19, 30.

Second, I would agree with Cranfield in his previous statement, in that Paul is addressing a select portion of ethnic Israel.  However, I believe that Cranfield is inconsistent in his analysis of Rom. 9.6b. 

If Paul’s emphasis is in regards to a select portion of Israel, can we not logically conclude from Rom. 9.1-5 that this group of Israelites are those that have believed in Christ (Rom. 9.3)? 

For instance, when Paul states that the “word of God” has not failed (9.6a), it is evident he is referring back to the redemptive promises of God in Rom. 9.4-5, even though many of them are accursed and separated from Christ (Rom. 9.3). 

So, I believe that we can that Paul is speaking of an “elect” portion within corporate Israel, “For not all which are out of Israel, are Israel” (Rom. 9.6b).   

Enjoy this post?  Consider sharing it with your friends with the Share/Shave below or Tweet above and subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS

As a Christian, if you, your family, or friends, were under imminent threat from another and your wellbeing was at stake, could you with a clear conscience defend yourself?  In answering this question it all depends upon the context:

Am I being assaulted for being a Christian or am I being attacked as a person with no bearing on my Christian Faith? 

In answering this question, the following is from David VanDrunen, Professor of Systematic Theology and Christian Ethics at Westminster Seminary California (Bearing Sword in the State, Turning Cheek in the Church: A Reformed Two-Kingdoms Interpretation of Matthew 5:38–42):

What we will observe from the latter part of his work is that if you’re being persecuted for your faith, then as a Christian non-retaliation to aggression is an appropriate response according to Matt. 5.38-42.  However, if you’re under threat as an individual with no bearing upon your Christian faith, then as a Christian, you have freedom to defend yourself and pursue justice.

Finally, the legitimacy of self-defense depends upon the context: am I being assailed as just another citizen of the civil kingdom or as a disciple of Jesus and hence as a member of the church?

If an individual Christian is threatened by a burglar who breaks into his home to steal his property, this is an ordinary civil matter, and the Christian (who, in this setting, just happens to be a Christian) is free (and perhaps even obligated?) to defend himself or seek coercive legal remedy.

But if an individual Christian is threatened because of her Christian faith, because she is identified with Christ as a member of his church, then is non-retaliation perhaps the appropriate response?  The context of Matt 5:38–42 suggests an affirmative answer.

Jesus most likely envisions his disciples being slapped, stripped, and conscripted not in ordinary civil disputes but specifically as his disciples: “Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me” (5:10–11).  The apostolic example suggests that Christians, in the face of state action, may peaceably appeal to the civil government to abide by its own laws (e.g., Acts 22:25–29). The apostles, however, never retaliated when government officials treated them unjustly and never pursued legal action against those who persecuted them.

The disruption of the civil kingdom may be avenged by the sword but the persecution of the kingdom of heaven may not.

Enjoy this post?  Consider sharing it with your friends with the Share/Shave below or Tweet  above and subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.

Does Jesus’ teaching from the Sermon on the Mount on not resisting evil and turning the other cheek apply to the government?  In light of these teachings, can Christians serve in the military and police with a clear conscience?  

In answering these questions, the following is from David VanDrunen, Professor of Systematic Theology and Christian Ethics at Westminster Seminary California (Bearing Sword in the State, Turning Cheek in the Church: A Reformed Two-Kingdoms Interpretation of Matthew 5:38–42).

What we’ll see from portions of his work below is that these texts are explicitly applicable for the church, not the government.  This means that Christians can serve with a clear conscience in the military or police.  For Christ, though having enough opportunity did not abolish the role and responsibility of the government in “bearing the sword.” 

Matthew 5.38-42

“You have heard that it was said, ‘An EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A THOOTH.’  But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.  If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also.  Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you.”

When Jesus prescribes turning the other cheek, giving up the garment, and going the second mile as an alternative to the lex talionis—the eye-for-eye principle of strict, proportionate justice—he addresses a key element of justice not only in the Mosaic law (Exod 21:22–25; Lev 24:18–21; Deut 19:21) but also in the Noahic covenant of Gen 9 and in countless human legal systems, such as the Law of Hammurabi and the Roman Law.  Applied literally and universally, Jesus’ words leave little room for Christian participation in the coercive enforcement of justice in civil society. Yet NT texts such as Rom 13:1–7 continue to speak positively about civil government and its justice and about Christian submission under its regime…

Matthew’s gospel makes clear, first of all, that social-political life in general is not the communal context in which the kingdom of heaven is made manifest and experienced, and thus where it’s non-violent and non-retributive ethic is to be implemented.

Jesus commends the great faith of a centurion (8:10), yet gives not the slightest hint that this faith is incompatible with his inherently violent occupation. Other places in the NT are similar (see Acts 10:1–11:18).

Later in Matthew the Pharisees give Jesus perfect opportunity to strip Caesar of his legitimate civil authority. But though Jesus strips Caesar of divine pretensions, he implicitly acknowledges his authority to levy taxes (enforcement of which requires the threat of coercion) (22:15–22).

Elsewhere the NT affirms this authority much more explicitly (see Rom 13:1–7). The whole of Matthew’s gospel, therefore, indicates that Jesus’ prohibition of the lex talionis in his kingdom does not mean the end of ordinary civil order or the end of his disciples’ participation in the coercive enforcement of civil justice.

If Matt 5:38–42 leaves the civil judicial order intact then where is its non-retributive ethic particularly to be manifest?  The Gospel of Matthew points us to the church as the community where the life and power of the kingdom of heaven were to be experienced by Jesus’ disciples. Matthew does not equate the kingdom and the church, but he points to the church as the manifestation of the kingdom in the present age.

 

Enjoy this post?  Consider sharing it with your friends with the Share/Shave below or Tweet above and subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS

This is part of an ongoing series on Romans 9.1-13 where I’m contending that individual election and salvation is taught by the Apostle Paul, not the historical destiny of nations or corporate election.  To ensure that you get every post on this topic (Estimate 15-20); I encourage you to subscribe via RSS or E-mail below.

Romans 9.6a

But it is not as though the Word of God has failed (My own translation).

At this point the Apostle Paul begins to contrast his previous train of thought – Romans 9.1-5 – with verse 9.6a.   We see this to be the case by his use of “but” (“de‘”), as we read, “But it is not as though the word of God has failed” (9.6a). 

This is an important half-verse, for, as observed by C.E.B. Cranfield, it serves as the thesis for Romans 9 to 11 (Romans: A Shorter Commentary, pg. 227).

Even though the “word of God,” as used within the New Testament, frequently denotes the Christian gospel, it is to be understood in a more restrictive sense here, and not an overall broad meaning.  We find the meaning of “the “word of God” by referring back to what was eluded to by Paul in the divine privileges of the Israelites (9.4-5), due to the literary contrast just noted above.

This is why John Murray once quipped,

“Word of God” should be understood in a more specific sense and not in the sense of Scripture as a whole or of the word of the truth of the gospel.  It is the word of promise in the covenants alluded to in verse 4 (Epistle to the Romans, pg. 9).

It is here that we understand that Paul is specifically referencing the redemptive promises of God (9.4-5), and that “the word of God” has not failed (9.6a), even though many of the Israelites are accursed and separated from Christ (9.3).

In providing further analysis, John Piper said,

Therefore, it is not just one of these things that seem to have fallen but all of them, including the work of the Messiah.  Therefore, Paul does not assert that one of them has not fallen but rather he chooses a broader term, namely, “the word of God has not fallen.  This is the reality which establishes or is embodied in each of the preceding privileges or benefits.  The intention of God, the plan of God, the revelation of God, we might say, which found expression in all these benefits – this has not fallen (The Justification of God: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Romans 9.1-23, pgs. 32-33).

Even though this is a readily agreeable portion of the text amongst scholars, opinions begin to vary as to the meaning expressed in Romans 9.6b.

Enjoy this post?  Consider sharing it with your friends with the Share/Shave below or Tweet above and subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.

This is part of an ongoing series on Romans 9.1-13 where I’m contending that individual election and salvation is taught by the Apostle Paul, not the historical destiny of nations or corporate election.  To ensure that you get every post on this topic (Estimate 15-20); I encourage you to subscribe via RSS or E-mail below.

Jacob and Esau by George Watts (1878)

There are varying opinions in the way we should understand the meaning of Romans 9.13, which reads,

“Just as it is written, ‘Jacob I chose, but Esau I have rejected’” (My own translation).

There are those that believe that one should not place undue emphasis on “emishsa” (James Dunn, pgs. 544-545).

However, in a Translators Handbook, the editors had the following to say in regards to the meaning of the verse,

Once again Paul makes an appeal to scripture; this time to Malachi 1.2-3.  The verb loved has the force of “chose,” while the verb hated has the force of “rejected.”  In this type of context it seems particularly useful to employ such terms as “chose” and “rejected” rather than the literal loved and hated, especially since an equivalent of hated may give entirely wrong connotations in a receptor language (Newman and Nida, 184).

The traditional meaning of “loved” and “hated” can carry either an emotional choice, or a choice of will. 

This is why it’s important for us to follow through with the interpretive thrust of the narrative in translating Romans 9.13 as, “Jacob I chose, but Esau I have rejected.”

Enjoy this post?  Consider sharing it with your friends with the Share/Shave below or Tweet above and subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.

This is part of an ongoing series on Romans 9.1-13 where I’m contending that individual election and salvation is taught by the Apostle Paul, not the historical destiny of nations or corporate election.  To ensure that you get every post on this topic (Estimate 15-20); I encourage you to subscribe via RSS or E-mail below.

Romans 9.4-5

Who are the Israelites (God’s chosen people), to whom belong the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the Law, and the [temple] service, and the promises, whose are the patriarchs, and out of whom the Christ, according to the flesh, who is God over all, blessed forever, Amen! (Personal translation).

Upon observing the Apostle Paul’s profound sorrow and grief for his kinsmen – the Israelites – and their separation from Christ (9.1-3), what we now see is his particularization of their divine redemptive privileges in Romans 9.4-5.  In other words, it was through Israel that God revealed Himself, salvation, and where Jesus Christ descended from.

As Paul further elaborates upon his grief (9.3), this series of verses will prove to be crucial in understanding what was meant by Paul in Romans 9.6-13.

Israel’s Divine Redemptive Privileges

Verses 9.4-5 are jammed packed with references to Israel’s privileged position within God’s redemptive activity in all of history.  Within these two verses there are several characteristics that contain a redemptive thread throughout.

What we see is this:

• They are Israelites (9.3b)
• To whom belong:
  • The adoption (9.4),
  • The glory (9.4),
  • The covenants (9.4),
  • The giving of the Law (9.4),
  • The temple service (9.4),
  • The promises (9.4),
  • The patriarchs (fathers) (9.5), and
  • The Christ (9.5) (John Piper, The Justification of God: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Romans 9.1-23, pg. 30).

It is accepted amongst commentators that these divine privileges denote that the Israelites are the chosen people of God for His redemptive purposes.

Paul is Addressing Individual Israelites within Corporate Israel, not Israel’s Destiny

The Apostle Paul is addressing individual Israel’s within Corporate Israel, and not Israel’s historical destiny.  John Piper clarified this point best, saying,

Many individual Israelites within the chosen people are not saved (cf. Rom 11.14).  Paul is not moved to grief (9.2) because corporate Israel has forfeited her non-salvific “theocratic privileges” while another people (the Church or the remnant) has taken over this “historical role.”  He is grieved because all the privileges of Israel listed in Rom 9.4-5 imply the eschatological, eternal salvation of this people but many individual Israelites are damned in their unbelief (ibid. 46).

Since the Israelites are not experiencing salvation through faith in Jesus Christ (9.3), even though they are heirs of God’s redemptive promises (9.4-5), the problem presented by this passage is this:

“Has God’s Word of promised salvation failed if in large part Israel is rejecting salvation through Jesus Christ (9.6a)?”

John Piper goes on to say, “Romans 9.1-5 states the problem: it appears that what God has guaranteed is in fact not happening –the end-time salvation of Israel.  Has then the word – the reliability—of God fallen, and with it the Christian hope as well?” (ibid. 30).

Conclusion

With these words from John Piper we will now begin to t urn our attention to Romans 9.6-13.  When doing so, it is of the utmost importance to stress that we cannot read this portion of text alienated from Romans 9.1-5.  To do so not only goes against semantics, it will also produce a completely different meaning than what was intended.

Enjoy this post?  Consider sharing it with your friends with the Share/Shave below or Tweet above and subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.

This is part of an ongoing series on Romans 9.1-13 where I contend that individual election and salvation is taught by the Apostle Paul, not the historical destiny of nations or corporate election.  To ensure that you get every post on this topic (Estimate 15-20), I encourage you to subscribe via RSS or E-mail below.

Romans 9.3

For I could wish [that] I myself were under God’s curse and separated from Christ, for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh (Personal Translation)

The emotions previously expressed by Paul (Rom. 9.1-2) are now built upon here and explained (Observe his use of “for”).  Paul explains his grief by expressing his wishing desire to be accursed and separated from Christ for the sake of his kinsmen.

This expression in and of itself denotes that Paul is specifically referring to the salvation of his kinsmen, the Israelites.  The veracity of this position weights heavily upon Paul’s use of “anaqema” (“anathema”).

The Meaning of Anathema

In the Greek-English Lexicon based upon the work of Walter Bauer, we observe that the definition, as implied in this context, means,

That which has been cursed, cursed, accursed (LXX as a rule what is ‘devoted to the divinity’ can be either consecrated or accursed).  The meaning of the word in other NT passages moves definitely in the direction of the latter) (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, pg. 63).

Paul’s expressed desire to be set apart for destruction, if it would be to any avail, is a direct reference to Paul’s final salvation.  Paul’s referencing his personal salvation has been observed by others as well.

For instance, Gerhard Schneider, writing in the Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament said,

In Rom 9.3 Paul expresses the impossible wish that for the sake of the salvation of his people he might take upon himself vicarious rejection: “would that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ,” i.e., so that he would be banned from association with Christ (pg. 83).

In addition to Schneider, C.E.B. Cranfield remarked,

The reference [9.3] is to the forfeiting of final salvation, the sentence of exclusion from Christ’s presence.  The Greek represented by ‘I…myself’ is strongly emphatic, and the order of words in Greek (‘I myself from Christ’) brings out the poignancy of the separation (Romans: A Shorter Commentary, pg. 219).

In the end, this observation will prove to be of significant importance, especially when we begin to move into Romans 9.6-13.

Enjoy this post?  Consider sharing it with your friends with the Share/Shave below or Tweet above and subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.

I speak the truth in Christ, I do not lie, my conscience bears witness (testifies) with me in the Holy Spirit, that I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart (My own translation).

Beginning with Romans 9.1-5, we observe that the Apostle Paul emphasizes the honesty in which he speaks, saying, “I speak the truth in Christ, I do not lie, my conscience bears witness (testifies) with me in the Holy Spirit” (9.1).

3 Points of Significance to Paul’s Honesty

From Sonlife Community Church

First, It is important for us to see the double oath that Paul made in this verse – “I speak the truth” and “I do not lie” – because they are characteristic Pauline sayings that emphasize the sincerity and veracity of what he is attempting to communicate (John Murray,  Epistle to the Romans, pgs. 1-2).

Second, it can be observed that Paul expressed such sincerity as an attempt to defend himself to his own kinsmen – the Jews – for his apparent turning away from them in order to minister to the Gentiles.  Commenting upon this passage James Dunn said,

Paul evidently felt himself under attack here.  Almost certainly there were those who considered that the apostle to the Gentiles had turned his back on his own people, was too little concerned for them, their prerogatives, and their susceptibilities (World Biblical Commentary: Rom. 9-16, pgs. 530-531).

Finally, this double oath by Paul was made to validate his “great sorrow and unceasing grief in [his] heart” (9.2) for his kinsmen, the Israelites (9.3b-4a), that were not accepting their promised Messiah, Jesus Christ (Rom. 9.5-6a).

Sometime soon I will work from Romans 9.3 as I continue to show that Romans 9.1-13 does indeed teach individual election, not the election and/or historical destination of nations.  I look forward to interacting with you on this topic and am more than open to your comments.  To ensure that you get every post on this topic (Estimate 15-20), I encourage you to subscribe via RSS or E-mail below.

Enjoy this post?  Consider sharing it with your friends with the Share/Shave below or Tweet above and subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.