"...what is man that you are mindful of him...?" (Psalms 8:4) |
I had a discussion with a good friend just recently concerning the relation of Romans 9:10-21 with the doctrine of predestination. This friend denies that the text refers to God's choice of people unto salvation, and asserted that I am somewhat misusing the passage out of its context. I've already explained my case to her in person, but I thought it'd be a good a idea to put my thoughts on paper as well. So here it is.
I. The Contextual Necessity of Romans 9:6-16
Romans 9 is basically a response to an anticipated objection related to Paul's assertions in the previous chapter. Remember his last statements in Romans 8:
[29]For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. [30]And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified. [31]What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? [32]He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? [33]Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies. [34] Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us. [35]Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? [36]As it is written, "For your sake we are being killed all the day long; we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered." [37]No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. [38]For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, [39]nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Rom. 8:28-39)In the above passage, Paul is presenting a case for our eternal security in Christ. In a nutshell, he is saying that since every detail of our Salvation finds its cause in God's eternal purpose in predestination (v. 29-30; cf. Eph. 1:4-5, 11; Php. 1:6), it follows that nothing will be able to snatch us from God's loving hand (v. 38-39; Jn. 10:28-29). In other words, all of God's elect will attain to faith and final glorification. Now this might have been a lovely music in the ears of the Gentile believer, but not so for a devout Jew.
A Jewish believer might wonder: If all of God's elect will be effectually called and be saved (v. 8:30), what about the countless Israelites that reject Christ and die in their unbelief every day? Certainly these people are also "elect"! Why then doesn't God convert all of them? Doesn't God have any business with Israel---his "elect" nation---anymore? Did His promises fail?
This objection raises a seeming dillema on the part of Paul that could strike at the very character of God and the integrity of the Christian gospel. It seems that it's either God's power to save Israel has failed, or God has simply chosen to abandon His elect nation and is therefore unfaithful to His words. In any case, how can we, Christians, make sure that God will certainly succeed in keeping us safe, or that God will not arbitrarily abandon us along the way?
Obviously, God is omnipotent and faithful to His words, and to say otherwise is not a valid option to resolve the issue. The problem, therefore, doesn't seem to lie on the character of God after all but on the truthfulness of Paul's teachings in Romans 8:29-39! Was Paul telling the truth when he claimed that nothing can separate the elect from Christ? If he was indeed telling the truth, what of Israel? Was Paul trying to blot Israel out of the picture?
II. Paul defends himself (v. 9:1-5)
Paul didn't just make up what he said in Romans 8:30-39. It is an inspired teaching from the Holy Spirit of God Himself. Paul's statement in v. 1 is emphatic: "I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit" (Rom. 9:1). Paul knows what he's saying, and his words are trustworthy.
Paul had no intention to keep Israel from God's plan of redemption. In fact, he is so concerned about them that he is willing to be "accursed and cut of from Christ" for their sake (i.e. for them to be converted); "...that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh" (Rom. 9:2-3).
Israel is indeed a peculiar nation chosen by God for a particular purpose, and Paul acknowledged this very fact when he wrote: "They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen" (Rom. 9:4-5). God has chosen Israel to be a channel of his blessings and revelations, reaching its full climax in the coming of His Son in the flesh (i.e. Israelite flesh - Jn. 1:1, 14).
Now, does Israel's blessedness (in terms of being a channel of the divine revelations) necessitates individual election for each and every child of Abraham according to natural descent? Paul answers the question in the following verses.
III. God's Sovereignty in Election (v. 9:6-16)
[6]But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, [7]and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but "Through Isaac shall your offspring be named." [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 offspring. [9]For this is what the promise said: "About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son. (Rom. 9:6-9)The Jews assume that all Israelites, being Abraham's children (by natural descent), are chosen by God for Salvation in virtue of their ethnic affiliation. Paul disagrees. For Paul, "not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel." There is Israel within Israel! There is a chosen remnant (cf. Rom. 11:2-7) in the midst of a rebellious nation.
The point Paul has been trying to make is that being a child of Abraham according to the flesh (an Israelite, in other words) doesn't make you an object of God's eternal blessings. To prove this, Paul cited the Torah in v. 7 and 9 to show how God has chosen Isaac over Ishmael when technically speaking both of them are truly Abraham's sons (in the flesh).
At this point, some of Paul's critics might say:
"Well, perhaps the reason why Isaac was chosen and Ishmael was rejected is that God foresaw that the former will be righteous, and the latter unrighteous. Thus, God's choice may not be according to race, but it is according to his foreknowledge of how men will lead their lives."
[10]And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, [11]though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls—[12]she was told, "The older will serve the younger." [13]As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." (Rom. 9:10-12)Jacob and Esau are twin brothers born of Isaac's blood. They both came directly from Abraham's linage, yet before they were "born and had done nothing either good or bad" God has already chosen Jacob over Esau to show that His choice of people unto Salvation is eternal and completely undeserved (i.e. not according to race or foreseen worth)!
Again, you would imagine Paul's critics raging up against him saying:
"Are you completely out of your mind, Paul? If God chooses people unto Salvation irrespective of their future choices, then God would be unfair/unjust! Who with a sane mind would ever believe such a devilish doctrine!?"To this Paul responds:
[14]What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! [15]For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." [16]So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. (Rom. 9:14-16)
Paul's point is that God's justice in graciously choosing certain people unto Salvation is safeguarded by the mere fact that He is sovereign. The apostle proves this by quoting Exodus 33:19 which says: "And I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy." It's like another way of saying, "[The Lord] does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, 'What have you done?'" (Dan. 4:35); and again, "Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or do you begrudge my generosity?" (Mat. 20:15). In other words, God has unrestricted freedom to dispense special favor on whomever He wills and is perfectly just in doing so.
Think about it. If all there in God is mere justice, what good reward do you think we all deserve? If God's dealing is all about justice, minus the mercy and grace, all of us should be in one place by now, and that place is HELL (Psa. 130:3, 143:2; Rom. 6:23). The Bible says left on our own sinful nature, we will never EVER seek after God (Rom. 3:9-12; Jn. 6:44, 65; 1 Cor. 2:14). In and of ourselves, we hate him (Rom. 8:7-8). We are by nature children of wrath (Eph. 2:3; cf. Psa. 51:5). There's no one who deserves eternal life, no, not even one. Hence, even if ever God has refused to save anyone from this sinful mass of fallen mankind, He would remain perfectly holy and just! In the first place, God is absolutely not under any moral obligation to save us (Psa. 8:4). As far as justice is concerned, God doesn't owe us anything, except punishment for our sins (Rom. 11:35). Thus, it is a matter of God's great mercy and unconditional love in predestination that anyone is in Christ Jesus and enjoys eternal life in Him (1 Cor. 1:28-31; Eph. 1:4-5, 11). It is God who first chose us so that we should choose Him (Jn. 15:16; Ac. 13:48), not the other way around. So instead of ingratiatingly accusing God of injustice, shouldn't we praise and worship Him all the more for His great mercy and love which He lavished on unworthy sinners like us (1 Th. 1:2-5; 2 Th. 2:13)?
(To be continued in Part 2)
Jeph, better tag her in this post - but keep it clear that through her you've been inspired by the Holy Spirit to make this article. The aim should be for enlightenment and not for further arguments. Smile because through this post, God is being lifted up. Keep up God's work.
ReplyDelete:)
Yes Ems, thanks for the advice, and thank you for dropping by my blog. God bless! :D
DeleteHello Jeph,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote in regards to Romans 9:10-12
"Jacob and Esau are twin brothers born of Isaac's blood. They both came directly from Abraham's linage, yet before they were "born and had done nothing either good or bad" God has already chosen Jacob over Esau to show that His choice of people unto Salvation is eternal and completely undeserved (i.e. not according to race or foreseen worth)!"
In verse 12 we read:
she was told, "The older will serve the younger."
Question Did Esau end up serving Jacob in his lifetime?
Russ
Russ,
DeleteThanks for dropping by my blog. I believe that verse should be interpreted according to how Paul intends it to mean in Romans 9, namely, to show that God elects whom He will, and that those who are eventually reprobated are used by God to the elect's advantage (v. 17, 22-23). This is to show that Israel's massive rebellion does not defeat, but serves God's purposes in saving His elect, not only from the Jews but from the Gentiles also.
Have you read the second part of my post?
In Christ,
Jeph
Thank you Jeph.
DeleteBut the context of Romans 9 must also be read with 10 and 11 otherwise your view of God’s sovereignty will run into some serious contradictions in 10 and 11. But apart from that, in 9 I must ask if you looked up the OT passages that are quoted here? Let’s look at verse 21 for example
21 Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?
This verse is cross referencing Jeremiah 18 which reads (Note the underlined words used)
1This is the word that came to Jeremiah from the LORD: 2“Go down to the potter’s house, and there I will give you my message.” 3So I went down to the potter’s house, and I saw him working at the wheel. 4But the pot he was shaping from the clay was marred in his hands; so the potter formed it into another pot, shaping it as seemed best to him.
5Then the word of the LORD came to me: 6“O house of Israel(notice this is plural), can I not do with you as this potter does?” declares the LORD. “Like clay in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel.(plural again) 7If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom(plural again) is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, 8and if that nation (plural again) I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. 9And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom(plural yet again) is to be built up and planted, 10and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it.
Notice the use of the words “nation” or “kingdom” and the phrase “O house of Israel”.
They’re all plural because they’re not talking about an individual’s salvation, but rather the corporate election of Israel the nation.
Now in Romans 9 we see this quoted, so my question to you is: Is God changing the meaning of Jeremiah 18 in quoting it in Romans 9 to mean individual election?
Tying this together with verse 6 Paul states that not all of ethnic Israel is spiritual Israel. This same concept applies to the church right now, not everyone is saved that goes to bible believing churches. Wouldn’t you agree?
The grace of the Lord Jesus be with you,
Russ
Russ,
DeleteI believe what determines the contextual purpose of Romans 9 is not chapters 10-11 but chapter 8:29-30 wherein Paul claimed that none of God's elect will finally perish. This idea is what provoked the question regarding God's faithfulness to Israel, which Paul sought to answer in chapters 9 to 11.
That being said, it is clear that Romans 9 does not refer to election of nations but of individuals UNTO salvation. True, Paul may have cited OT passages which talks about God's dealing with Israel as a whole, but its personal/individual application in Romans 9 is unavoidably obvious IF its conceptual connection with Romans 8 is not taken for granted.
In interpreting Romans 9, you don't start with chapters 10-11. You start with chapter 8.
As to your question:
[Is God changing the meaning of Jeremiah 18 in quoting it in Romans 9 to mean individual election?]
My answer:
Not in anyway. As I said in my previous comment, Romans 9 (with all its citation from the OT) should be interpreted according to its CONTEXTUAL PURPOSE which I sufficiently explained in my post above.
True, Jeremiah 18 talks about God's sovereignty in dealing with Israel as a whole, but I don't see how this is a denial of individual election. The reason Paul cited the verse is to SHOW that God has absolute sovereignty OVER His creation, having mercy and inflicting judgment on whom He wills.
-Jeph
In the link below, Michael Patton listed 12 good reasons to believe Romans 9 refers to individual election. You may want to check this out:
DeleteTWELVE REASONS WHY ROMANS 9 IS ABOUT INDIVIDUAL ELECTION, NOT CORPORATE ELECTION
Jeph, you wrote:
ReplyDelete“In the link below, Michael Patton listed 12 good reasons to believe Romans 9 refers to individual election. You may want to check this out:
TWELVE REASONS WHY ROMANS 9 IS ABOUT INDIVIDUAL ELECTION, NOT CORPORATE ELECTION “
“Patton states:
2. In the election of Jacob over Esau (Rom. 9:10-13), while having national implications, starts with individuals. We cannot miss this fact.
3. Jacob was elected and Esau rejected before the twins had done anything good or bad. There is no mention of the nations having done anything good or bad. If one were to say this is nations that Paul is talking about, it would seem that they are reading their theology into the text.”
But again I ask you and Patton is God changing the meaning of Jeremiah 18 in Romans 9?
Patton skips Chapter 10 of Romans and then addresses all of Romans 11 with two small paragraphs. If we're to discuss Romans 11 in the most basic sense like Patton, then it becomes very evident that 11 is talking about how God has now made salvation available to all, even us gentiles. We are the grafted olive branch into the olive tree, with the pure (Jewish) olive branches being the first of which the root is Christ.
What I’m saying is that in the Old Covenant salvation was corporate, received individually. I’m also saying that it didn’t change in the New Covenant; the Church is the object of predestination “In Christ” Ephesians 1-2, again received individually.
Jeph, how do you deal with Romans 9 in regards to this post and the previous one?
Thanks,
Russ
Russ,
DeleteAgain, I am yet to see the logic of denying individual election based on passages which simply mentions God's chosen people collectively. We don't deny that God has chosen people unto Himself, but this goes hand in hand with individual election as clearly presented by the apostle Paul in Romans 9. Of course you would deny this because you ignore its contextual purpose in connection with its preceding passage, i.e. Romans 8:29-39.
Romans 8:29-39 talks about the eternal security of believers grounded in God's sovereignty in Salvation (v. 29-39). The same concept flows through Paul's discussions in chapters 9-11 where he answered the question:
If none of God's elect will finally perish, why is it that most of the Israelites are dying in unbelief and rejection to the Gospel? Aren't they also God's chosen? Were they abandoned by God? If that's the case, how can we have assurance that God will not also forsake us? But if they weren't forsaken, that would mean God's promise had failed. Now how can we have complete assurance if God can fail in His promises?
Paul was therefore defending God's faithfulness and sovereignty in Romans 9-11, which has EVERYTHING TO DO with individual assurance. Election of nations will not make any contextual sense in this case.
In Christ,
-Jeph
As with your question whether God changed the meaning of Jeremiah 18 in Romans 9, I have answered that already. I said NO.
DeletePaul's intention in citing Jeremiah 18 is SIMPLY to prove that God is sovereign and we, as mere creatures, are not in position to question His decisions. Paul didn't have to change the meaning of Jeremiah 18 to make this point. Even if Jeremiah 18 is about Israel's destiny as a nation, this is no restriction for Paul from using it concerning God's sovereignty in matters of individual destinies (i.e. the hardening of millions of individual Israelites in order that the Gentiles may partake of the Gospel).
Again, Paul didn't have to alter the meaning of Jeremiah 18 to show that God's sovereign, no more than Jesus had to change the meaning of Zech. 13:7, a passage that DOES NOT speak of the Messiah but of the wicked leaders of Jerusalem, to prove a certain principle; namely, that the sheep will scatter once the shepherd is beaten/assaulted.
I hope you get my point though I'm not that very good in communicating with the English language.
In Christ,
-Jeph
Jeph you wrote:
ReplyDelete“Again, I am yet to see the logic of denying individual election based on passages which simply mentions God's chosen people collectively. We don't deny that God has chosen people unto Himself, but this goes hand in hand with individual election as clearly presented by the apostle Paul in Romans 9. Of course you would deny this because you ignore its contextual purpose in connection with its preceding passage, i.e. Romans 8:29-39. “
On the contrary in 29-39 we read - Notice again the plural pronouns used, I CAPITALIZED them.
29For THOSE whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; 30and THESE whom He predestined, He also called; and THESE whom He called, He also justified; and THESE whom He justified, He also glorified.
31What then shall we say to these things? If God is for US, who is against US? 32He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for US all, how will He not also with Him freely give US all things? 33Who will bring a charge against God’s ELECT(plural)? God is the one who justifies; 34who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for US. 35Who will separate US from the love of Christ? Will tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?
36Just as it is written,
“FOR YOUR SAKE WE ARE BEING PUT TO DEATH ALL DAY LONG;
WE WERE CONSIDERED AS SHEEP TO BE SLAUGHTERED.”
37But in all THESE things WE overwhelmingly conquer through Him who loved US. 38For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, 39nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate US from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.(also notice these last words “in Christ Jesus” this is the object of God’s predestination)
My question is how are you reading individual election into this set of verses with all of these plural pronouns?
You wrote:
“Romans 8:29-39 talks about the eternal security of believers grounded in God's sovereignty in Salvation (v. 29-39). The same concept flows through Paul's discussions in chapters 9-11 where he answered the question:
If none of God's elect will finally perish, why is it that most of the Israelites are dying in unbelief and rejection to the Gospel? Aren't they also God's chosen? Were they abandoned by God? If that's the case, how can we have assurance that God will not also forsake us? But if they weren't forsaken, that would mean God's promise had failed. Now how can we have complete assurance if God can fail in His promises?”
Jeph, please demonstrate in these verses where specifically eternal security is taught or deduced?
Also where is Paul answering your question you posed?
And finally again is God changing the meaning of Jeremiah 18 when He quotes it in Romans 9?
Bless you, Russ
Russ,
DeleteYou said:
[My question is how are you reading individual election into this set of verses with all of these plural pronouns?]
First and foremost, did the passage deny any notion of individual election? It didn't. But if you'd ask where did I get the idea of individual election, look up Romans chapter 9 verses 7-13.
[Jeph, please demonstrate in these verses where specifically eternal security is taught or deduced?]
Please read through Romans 8:29-39. Paul begins with God's sovereignty in the whole process of salvation (v. 29-30), then he shows that Christ's death provided not only atonement for their sins but also all the graces required unto the fullness of salvation (v. 31-34), then in verses 35-37 he proves that they are more than conquerors through God's love, and finally, he concluded that nothing in all creation (including devils) will be able to finally separate them (i.e. the elect) from God's love.
This conclusion is what sparked the question regarding God's faithfulness to His chosen nation, Israel. The Jews thought they were also among the elect unto salvation merely on account of their being an Israelite according to natural descent. Technically, they hold to an idea of corporate election, but Paul refuted this idea when he presented examples in Romans 9 that God elects INDIVIDUALS unto Salvation (as context dictates), not according to race or foreseen worth, but according to His mere mercy.
[Also where is Paul answering your question you posed?]
In Romans 9-11. I thought you've read these chapters already.
In Christ,
-Jeph
Jeph you said:
ReplyDelete“You said:
[My question is how are you reading individual election into this set of verses with all of these plural pronouns?]
First and foremost, did the passage deny any notion of individual election? It didn't. But if you'd ask where did I get the idea of individual election, look up Romans chapter 9 verses 7-13.”
This passage does deny individual election with the use of the plural pronouns. Are you denying this? I don't see you dealing with the pronouns mentioned.
Again I ask are you looking up the OT scriptures that are being quoted in 7-13?
Verse 13 for example is quoting Malachi 1:2-3, 4-5 give further context
2“I have loved you,” says the Lord.
“But you ask, ‘How have you loved us?’
“Was not Esau Jacob’s brother?” the Lord says. “Yet I have loved Jacob, 3but Esau I have hated, and I have turned his mountains into a wasteland and left his inheritance to the desert jackals.”
4Edom may say, “Though we have been crushed, we will rebuild the ruins.”
But this is what the Lord Almighty says: “They may build, but I will demolish. They will be called the Wicked Land, a people always under the wrath of the Lord. 5You will see it with your own eyes and say, ‘Great is the Lord—even beyond the borders of Israel!’
This is talking about the NATION Israel (Jacob) and the NATION Edom(Esau. And not only that, the older served the younger, that is, Edom ended up serving Israel. Again the corporate nature of Romans 9 is pretty clear. So is God changing the meaning of Malachi and Jeremiah in Romans 9?
You wrote:
“[Jeph, please demonstrate in these verses where specifically eternal security is taught or deduced?]
Please read through Romans 8:29-39. Paul begins with God's sovereignty in the whole process of salvation (v. 29-30), then he shows that Christ's death provided not only atonement for their sins but also all the graces required unto the fullness of salvation (v. 31-34), then in verses 35-37 he proves that they are more than conquerors through God's love, and finally, he concluded that nothing in all creation (including devils) will be able to finally separate them (i.e. the elect) from God's love. “
And what about the use of all the plural pronouns that I posted in my last post that Paul used in verse 29-39? Shall we ignore these?
You wrote:
“This conclusion is what sparked the question regarding God's faithfulness to His chosen nation, Israel. The Jews thought they were also among the elect unto salvation merely on account of their being an Israelite according to natural descent. Technically, they hold to an idea of corporate election, but Paul refuted this idea when he presented examples in Romans 9 that God elects INDIVIDUALS unto Salvation (as context dictates), not according to race or foreseen worth, but according to His mere mercy. “
Technically they did not hold to corporate election, they were trying to hold to an inherited through blood line election. Corporate election is God predestining a people (group) in the NT the church but election doesn’t become personal until one enters into union with Christ or chooses not to. Abraham was part of spiritual Israel not because of his ethicity, but his faith as we learn in Romans and Hebrews. We are saved as Paul is stating in Romans 9-11 by entering into union with Christ, that's why he is using plural pronouns.
You wrote:
“[Also where is Paul answering your question you posed?]
In Romans 9-11. I thought you've read these chapters already.”
Yes I’ve read it many times, I was asking you to show me specifically where you were answering the question you posed.
Thanks, Russ
Russ,
DeleteAgain the burden of proof is on your shoulder to prove that mere usage of plural pronouns in Romans 8 is tantamount to rejection of individual election. Saying "We are all chosen to work for this company" does not necessarily mean "we are NOT individually chosen to work..." That just doesn't follow, if you know logic at all.
You see, Calvinists have no problem with plural pronouns. We can say "WE" (plural)are chosen / elect / predestined while holding to personal election at the same time. The problem is ON YOUR side, because aside from the fact that Roamns 8 DOES NOT say election is NOT personal, the immediate context (Romans 9) proves otherwise.
[Again I ask are you looking up the OT scriptures that are being quoted in 7-13? Verse 13 for example is quoting Malachi 1:2-3, 4-5 give further context]
Correction, Malachi 1:2-3, 4-5 does not give further context to Romans 9. The passage "Jacob I loved, Esau was hated" was used by Paul for another purpose, namely, to show that God is sovereign over the individual destinies of men.
[This is talking about the NATION Israel (Jacob) and the NATION Edom(Esau. And not only that, the older served the younger, that is, Edom ended up serving Israel. Again the corporate nature of Romans 9 is pretty clear. So is God changing the meaning of Malachi and Jeremiah in Romans 9?]
Malachi 1 does talk about nations, but Paul cited the passage to refer to individuals. If Paul had corporate election in mind in Romans 9, his overall argument would NOT MAKE ANY SENSE at all in relation to the question whether (1) all of Israel belong to God's elect people, (2) Israel's rebellion (which involves individual rejection to the Gospel) defeated God's purposes. However, Paul's answer was clear. Not all Israel are of spiritual Israel composed of all the elect, and he proved this by citing examples of individuals who are chosen by God not according to race / works, but according to mercy.
[Technically they did not hold to corporate election, they were trying to hold to an inherited through blood line election. Corporate election is God predestining a people (group) in the NT the church but election doesn’t become personal until one enters into union with Christ or chooses not to. Abraham was part of spiritual Israel not because of his ethicity, but his faith as we learn in Romans and Hebrews. We are saved as Paul is stating in Romans 9-11 by entering into union with Christ, that's why he is using plural pronouns.]
The Jews were corporate electionists, believing that God has chosen the people of Israel (group) unto Salvation. This idea is essentially the same as yours, but we have seen how Paul refuted this wrong doctrine in Romans 9.
In Christ,
-Jeph
Thanks Jeph. I agree with you that there is a stronger argument that Romans 9 refers to individual election rather than corporate election.
ReplyDelete