Full Commentary Available on Amazon
OUTLINE OF ROMANS 9
by Dr. Leighton Flowers
I. CONTEXTUAL INFORMATION
A. In the previous eight chapters, Paul made man’s need and God’s gracious provision through Christ abundantly clear.
B. Paul ends chapter 8 on such a high note in reflection of the endless, inseparable love God has for those who are in an abiding, loving relationship with Him (8:9,28).
C. The tone shifts dramatically to the topic of Paul’s great sorrow and continual grief for Israel who has now been “cut off in their unbelief” (Rom. 11:20).
II. THE CONDITION OF ISRAEL (1-3)
A. Paul testifies to the seriousness and sincerity of his inspired words.
“I tell the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit”
(1) This is not merely an emotional appeal from the heart of a Jew who desires to see more of his own kind saved.
(2) Instead, it is a witness of the Spirit Himself inspiring the apostle’s deep conviction and desire for all lost souls.
B. Paul demonstrates a Christ-like, self-sacrificial plea for hardened Israel
“that I have great sorrow and continual grief in my heart”
(1) Paul shifts from celebrating the relationship of the believer, those grafted in by faith, to reflecting on the overwhelming number of those cut off for their unbelief from his own country of Israel, a topic that continues into the following chapters (11:20).
(2) Here, the apostle deals with his feelings about the current condition of Israel, who has rejected their own Messiah. How does that reflect on God’s promise made to Israel (Gen. 12:3)? Has God failed to keep that promise? If God will not keep His promise to Israel, then how can we know He will keep His promise to us?
“For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh”
(1) This is a self-sacrificial, Christ-like love for those who have become his enemies. Paul again expresses this desire for unbelieving Israel in 10:1, which is repeated with a quote from God’s own lips in 10:21.
(2) This likewise reflects the same heart of Moses referenced by the apostle in 9:15: “Then Moses returned to the LORD and said, ‘Oh, these people have committed a great sin, and have made for themselves a god of gold! Yet now, if You will forgive their sin; but if not, I pray, blot me out of Your book which You have written’” (Exodus 32:31-32).
(3) Most importantly, Paul reflects the very desire of Jesus, who was willing to be accursed for his enemies that they might be saved (Gal. 3:13).
II. THE WORD ENTRUSTED TO ISRAEL (4-5)
A. Given that any nationality may be saved through faith and many from Israel do not believe, then what benefit is there in being a Jew?
“…who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen.”
(1) As first mentioned in 3:1-2, the apostle here reminds the reader the benefit or blessing of being a natural descendant of Israel.
(2) The very Word of God was entrusted to Israel (Rom. 3:2), which included the MESSIAH and His redemptive MESSAGE.
(3) The special revelation of God, which all served to testify and prepare the way for the Messiah and His gospel, came by way of this elect nation.
B. Israel’s unfaithfulness and their being cut off for unbelief does not negate this blessing, or the promise that first brought that blessing to this elect nation of God (Gen. 12:3; Rom. 3:3-4).
III. WHY THAT WORD HAS NOT FAILED (6-8)
A. Since the very people entrusted to bring the Word are standing in opposition to it, then has His Word failed?
“But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect”
(1) The ones entrusted with the Word are opposing the Word, so then, has the Word failed?
(2) God’s word has not failed despite how things may appear from our limited human perspective.
(3) The fulfillment of God’s Word, as promised to Abraham, is not dependent upon the faithfulness of Israelites (Rom. 3:3-4).
B. So, the many descendants of Israel you are seeing stand in opposition to the Word, were not chosen by God to carry the Word, thus it cannot be concluded that God’s Word has failed.
“For they are not all Israel who are of Israel”
(1) Not every descendant of Israel is chosen to carry out the purpose for which God elected Israel.
(2) Not every descendant of Israel is blessed to be in the lineage of the Messiah or to be an inspired messenger of God’s word.
C. Not every descendant of Israel is guaranteed salvation on the basis of being of Israel.
“nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, ‘In Isaac your seed shall be called.’ That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed.”
(1) Abraham’s two sons, by two different mothers, is used allegorically by Paul to represent the two covenants of Law and Faith, as Paul’s own self-commentary explains in Gal. 4:21-25: “Abraham had two sons, one by the bondwoman and one by the free woman. But the son by the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and the son by the free woman through the promise. This is allegorically speaking, for these women are two covenants: one proceeding from Mount Sinai bearing children who are to be slaves; she is Hagar. Now this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children.” (Gal. 4:21-25, NASB, emphasis added).
(a) Abraham worked to bring about a nation through Hagar, so she and Ishmael is used by Paul allegorically to represent the covenant of works. For the most part, Israel is pursuing righteousness by works and they are not attaining it (vs 31).
(b) Abraham should have waited on God’s promise to Sarah by faith, so she and Isaac are being used by Paul allegorically to represent the covenant of grace which is applied through faith. Many more Gentiles are pursuing righteousness by faith and therefore are attaining it (vs 30).
(2) This is the apostle’s way of using a history lesson to remind his audience that being a seed of Abraham does not mean one is guaranteed the blessings listed in verses 4 and 5, which were specific to the seed of Isaac.
(3) Nor does it guarantee the eternal blessing of being a child of God, which comes by faith in God’s promise (symbolized by Isaac, whose birth came by grace) to whosoever believes, not by works of the law (symbolized by Ishmael, whose birth came by works).
IV. GOD’S PLAN TO BRING THE WORD THROUGH ISRAEL (9-13)
A. Israel (Jacob) was chosen to be the means by which the Messiah and His message would come to the world.
“For this is the word of promise: ‘At this time I will come and Sarah shall have a son.’”
(1) This is the way in which the word of promise given to Abraham (Gen. 12:3) is to be fulfilled.
(2) Isaac will be the lineage through whom the Word would come: The Messiah and His message come through Isaac’s seed, not Ishmael’s.
(3) Sarah is a free woman and represents the covenant of faith, as opposed to the covenant of law represented by the slave woman (Gal. 4:21-25).
“And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even by our father Isaac…”
(1) The apostle is taking this one step further by not only seeking to prove his claims about the descendants of Abraham are true, but to even more specifically show that not even the direct descents of Isaac are:
(a) Guaranteed salvation on the basis they are a descendant.
(b) Chosen for the noble purpose of bringing the Word to the rest of the world.
“(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) it was said to her, ‘The older shall serve the younger.'”
(1) God’s choice of Jacob, the lesser of the two brothers in age and physical prowess, was for the noble purpose of bringing the Word to the rest of the world.
(2) God’s choice to fulfill His promise is not based upon the impressiveness of the nation (Deut. 7:7) or the morality of its representative head (Gen. 25:23).
(3) The fulfillment of God’s Word has never relied upon the faithfulness or morality of the individuals chosen to carry it out (Rom. 3:3-4).
(4) Neither brother would be justified apart from grace through faith in God, even though they are direct descendants of both Abraham and Isaac.
(5) Salvation is by the covenant of grace through faith in the call of God, not the covenant of law through works.
B. Other descendants of Abraham (Esau and the Edomites) were not chosen for this noble purpose.
“As it is written, ‘Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.’”
(1) Over 1500 years separate this quote in Malachi from the previous verse quoted from Genesis indicating more of a “before and after picture” of what happened to Esau and his lineage.
(2) The expressed hatred toward Esau’s household reflected in the quote from Malachi reveals:
(a) Even direct descendants of Isaac himself (Edom) are not chosen for the noble purposes that God elected Israel, thus one should not assume that the opposition of direct descendants to God’s Word is an indication of its failure.
(b) Even direct descendants of Isaac himself (Edom) are not guaranteed salvation, especially if they remain in opposition to those who are chosen to bring the Word of God. As conditioned upon the original promise… “I will curse those who curse you” (Gen. 12:3).
(3) Many examples in scripture are given to show the concept of “hate” referring to simply rejecting (without disdain) one over another for a noble task (Genesis 29:31, 33; Deuteronomy 21:15; Matthew 6:24; Luke 14:26; John 12:25).
Esau was also blessed and protected by God (Deut. 23:7, Gen. 33:8-16, Gen. 36), so the “hatred” was either:
(a) conditioned upon the Edomites attack upon Israel and/or…
(b) in reference to God’s selection of Jacob and his lineage for the noble purpose over Esau and his lineage.
V. WHY GOD IS JUST IN SHOWING MERCY TO UNFAITHFUL ISRAELITES TO ACCOMPLISH HIS PROMISE IN BRINGING THE WORD (14-16)
A. God’s choosing to bless one descendant over another descendant does not make Him unrighteous.
“What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not!”
(1) The descendants of Abraham in Paul’s day had two false perceptions:
(a) Every descendant deserves the benefit of bringing God’s Word. However, the truth is that God has only selected a remnant through whom to bring His Word.
(b) Every descendant deserves eternal life on the basis of their being of Israel. However, no one is saved based on nationality but only upon grace through faith.
(2) Those nations, and the individuals therein, who oppose God’s Word remain under the curse (hatred), as illustrated by Edom (direct descendants of Isaac himself).
(3) There is no unrighteousness with God for choosing some descendants for a noble cause and not others, nor is it unjust to condemn a descendant of Abraham who stands in opposition to the Word of God.
B. God can have mercy on unfaithful desendants when it serves His purpose.
“For He says to Moses, ‘I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.’”
(1) Mercy is patiently refraining from punishing someone who deserves to be punished, it does not mean effectual salvation.
(a) Paul’s reference to Moses’ encounter with God in Exodus 32-33 gives a perfect historical example of when God was merciful to Israel when they deserved to be destroyed for their unfaithfulness (worshipping a golden calf).
(b) This example also parallels Moses’ self-sacrificial Christ-like love for Israel as reflected by Paul in the opening verses of this chapter… “forgive their sin—and if not blot me out…” (Ex. 32:31-32).
(2) Certainly God may choose to save whosoever He is pleased to save (scripture teaches He chooses to save those who humble themselves and repent in faith – 1 Pt. 5:5-6), but this passage is in reference to God patiently showing mercy to unfaithful Israel so as to fulfill His original promise through them even though they deserve condemnation.
C. God’s purpose in electing Israel is not dependant upon the willing and running of Israel
“So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy.”
(1) “It” refers to the fulfillment of God’s promise to bring His Word despite Israel’s unfaithfulness (Rom. 3:3-4).
(2) The promise depends on our merciful God, not on the faithfulness (“willing and running”) of Abraham or his descendants.
(a) Abraham “willed and ran” in the flesh to produce a son through Hagar (who Paul used symbolically to represent the covenant of law and works, Gal. 4:24).
(b) God, by his mercy, provided Isaac through the free woman, Sarah (who Paul used symbolically to represent the covenant of grace by faith in the call of God, Gal. 4:21-26).
VI. WHY GOD IS JUST TO HARDEN UNFAITHFUL ISRAELITES TO ACCOMPLISH HIS PROMISE IN BRINGING THE WORD (17-18)
A. God can harden the unfaithful when it serves His purposes.
“For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, ‘For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.’”
(1) In the same way God hardened the already rebellious will of Pharaoh in order to accomplish the first Passover, so too God hardened the already rebellious wills of Israelites to accomplish the real Passover.
(2) God’s power and goodness was displayed in ‘mercy-ing’ unfaithful Israelites in the day of Moses and in hardening the unfaithful Israelites in the day of the Messiah.
B. God can patiently refrain from punishing Israel when they deserve it to accomplish His purpose, and He can cut them off in their unbelief to accomplish His purpose.
“Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.”
(1) Sometimes God will fulfill His promises by showing Israelites mercy, but His Word will never fail.
(2) Sometimes God will fulfill His promises by hardening Israelites, but His Word will never fail.
(a) Those judicially hardened or cut off are not born in this condition, but have “grown hardened” over years of rebellion (Acts 28:27),
(b) they are cut off for unbelief (11:20)
(c) and the hope of the apostle is that they may be grafted back in and saved (11:11-32).
VII. IF THE ISRAELITES’ UNRIGHTEOUSNESS ACCOMPLISHES GOD’S PROMISE TO BRING HIS WORD, WHY ARE THEY TO BLAME? (19-21)
A. Why blame someone if their rebellious actions were apart of God’s plan?
“You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will? But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God?”
(1) You (an Israelite hardened to accomplish God’s promise) will say to me (an Israelite shown mercy to accomplish God’s promise), why are we to blame if God’s will is being fulfilled?
(2) As the apostle already indicated in 3:5, this is a man-made argument that reveals a heart that has become calloused in its rebellion, otherwise they might see, hear, understand and repent (Acts 17:30; 28:27).
B. Do those cut off and hardened by God have the right to question God’s judgements?
“Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?”
(1) The lump of hardened clay represents Israel who is had grown calloused in rebellion (Acts 28:27) and who are now being re-molded into two kinds of vessels:
(a) Those unfaithful Israelites remolded, by means of signs from the incarnate Messiah Himself, to bring the Word.
(b) Those unfaithful Israelites remolded, by means of judicially hardening, to accomplish the ignoble purpose of bringing redemption on the cross and the grafting in of the Gentiles (yet they still may be saved, Rom. 11:11-32).
VIII. HOW GOD’S WORD, AND THUS HIS GLORY, IS REVEALED THROUGH MERCY-ING AND HARDENING ISRAEL (22-24)
A. God is just to demonstrate his wrath and power through rebellious people (even if they are of His elect nation).
“What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known”
(1) By hardening Pharaoh God demonstrated his power over all the false Egyptian gods.
(2) Just as God manifests Himself through Pharaoh’s judicial hardening, He likewise does so through Israel’s judicial hardening.
B. God may be patient and merciful on rebellious people when it serves a greater redemptive purpose.
“endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction”
(1) God patiently put up with Israel, even in their stubborn rebellion, so as to accomplish a greater redemptive good (crucifixion and the grafting in of the Gentiles).
(2) Due to their continual unbelief and rebellion, Israel prepared themselves for wrath and destruction.
(3) Being “cut off,” “given over” or “prepared” for the destruction is what they have earned by their own free rebellion (like the Edomites and Egyptians before them).
“and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?”
(1) The promise made to Abraham to bless all the families of the earth (by the coming Messiah and His message) is now being fulfilled through the hardening and mercy-ing of Israel.
(2) The vessels prepared for mercy are “all the families of the earth” (Gen. 12:3) who God has promised His blessing from the very beginning: “Whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved” (Rom. 10:13; Joel 2:32).
(3) God’s plan has always been to glorify whosoever believes and trust in Him, whether of Israel or the other nations of the Earth.
IX. HOW ALL THE NATIONS BENEFIT FROM THE MERCY-ING AND HARDENING OF ISRAEL BY THE BRINGING OF GOD’S WORD (25-29)
A. The Prophets of old spoke of these truths.
“As He says also in Hosea: ‘I will call them My people, who were not My people, and her beloved, who was not beloved.” And it shall come to pass in the place where it was said to them, ‘You are not My people,’ there they shall be called sons of the living God.’”
(1) Notice that even in the original context the author acknowledges God’s genuine love for Israel despite their rebellion (Hosea 3:1), which is echoed by Paul throughout his entire context (Rom. 9:1-3; 10:1, 21; 11:11-32).
(2) God told Hosea to call his child “Lo-Ammi,” meaning “Not My People.” However, God also promised this was temporary.
(3) People formerly not known to be His people are now benefitting from the redemptive plan God has brought to pass through both the noble and ignoble vessels formed by the merciful Potter from the predominantly unfaithful lump of Israelite clay.
B. Paul is using the scriptures to demonstrate that this has always been God’s mysterious redemptive plan (Eph. 3:1-13).
“Isaiah also cries out concerning Israel: ‘Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, the remnant will be saved. For He will finish the work and cut it short in righteousness, because the LORD will make a short work upon the earth.’ And as Isaiah said before: ‘Unless the LORD of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we would have become like Sodom, and we would have been made like Gomorrah.’”
(1) Regardless of the Israelites unfaithfulness throughout the generations God has always saved a believing remnant from physical destruction so as to carry out the purpose for which Israel was first elected: to bring the Word to the world.
(2) God’s promise will not fail, even if Israel is unfaithful.
(3) If Israel had received what they deserved they would have been like the ancient cities of Sodom and Gomorrah.
(4) Though the number of natural descendants are as countless as all the sand of the sea, only those Israelites who (like the Gentiles) pursue righteousness by faith would attain it.
X. PAUL’S OWN COMMENTARY OF THIS PASSAGE AS BEING ABOUT FAITH IN THE WORD VERSUS WORKS OF THE LAW (30-33)
A. Paul gives an inspired summary of this chapter.
“What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness of faith; but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness.”
(1) The Gentiles did not run after the law and desire to keep the commandments in order to earn God’s favor (the covenant laws represented by Hagar/Ishmael to begin this chapter), but they trusted in His promise (the covenant promise represented by Sarah/Isaac, see Gal. 4:21-26).
(2) The Israelites, in contrast, did run after and desire to keep the commandments in order to attain righteousness (much like Abraham trying to produce a son in the flesh through a slave woman), but they have not attained it.
B. From the beginning this chapter has been about faith or works, not synergism or monergism. Salvation is all of God. But our sovereign God chooses to save those who pursue righteousness by faith rather than by works regardless of their nationality or morality.
“Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, by the works of the law.”
(1) Why were the Israelites not able to attain righteousness?
(a) Was it because they were rejected by God before the foundation of the earth and not given the grace they needed to believe? By no means!
(b) The apostle’s answer is clear and the difference is faith verses works, not chosen or un-chosen.
(2) All who seek to attain righteousness by works rather than faith will fail to attain it.
“For they stumbled at that stumbling stone. As it is written: ‘Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling stone and rock of offense, And whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.’”
(1) The idea of a Messiah being crucified by the Israelites own hand was a “stumbling stone and a rock of offense.” To admit Jesus was their own Messiah would require them to own up to the shame of crucifying Him. But the apostle reminds them that whoever believes in Christ will not be put to shame for their wrong doing (see also Rom. 10:11).
(2) Throughout this letter to the church in Rome, Paul clearly explains that salvation is attained by faith rather than works. So, why were some unable to attain righteousness? They pursued righteousness by law (Rom. 3:10-19) rather than by faith (Rom. 3:21-31). One should not assume that because the former is unattainable so is the latter.
I hope and pray that your book gets wider exposure! I don’t know if you saw any of the times when I pointed to Rom 9:25 as a means to get Calvinists to rethink what being loved by God means. For either “beloved” in that verse means “elect” and “not beloved” means “not elect” or “beloved” is more encompassing, like special nation status including elect and non-yet elect, to receive God’s grace (cf 11:28).
If the Calvinist wants to defend that “beloved” in 9:25 means “elect”, then they must jettison the idea of eternally immutably individually elect, since in that verse the same ones were “not beloved” at least for some period of time. If the Calvinist wants to concede that “beloved” in 9:25 means some entity that includes both elect and non-yet elect, then they should have no problem seeing everyone in all of the nation of Israel as beloved for the gospel sake, or everyone in all nations as beloved for the gospel sake for that matter.
What do you think?
Leighton:
Thanks. I realize that this is just an outline.
I was hoping to see a reference to Jeremiah’s Potter’s house story in Jeremiah 18. Surely this is what the Roman’s 9 Potter is alluding to.
4 But 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.
It is amazing that the Lord God Almighty would use an example where He as the Potter, allowed the clay to be “marred in his hands.” Then He started over with another plan. That would seem to teach the opposite of determinism.
But to make sure we understand, He goes on…
5 Then the word of the Lord came to me. 6 He said, ‘Can I not do with you, Israel, as this potter does?’ declares the Lord. ‘Like clay in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, Israel. 7 If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, 8 and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. 9 And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, 10 and 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.
This story illustrates that the Rom 9 passage was addressing (a) the “all Israel and only Israel?” question, and (b) the “who are you Israelites to question whether I want to let gentiles in question?” and (c) the “does God react to man?” question.
That is talked about thoroughly in my commentary
I found this outline incredibly helpful in understanding Romans 9. Some of it I had put together on my own, but there were still some very difficult parts that I was uncertain how Paul’s argument and chain of thought were developing. A question for Leighton or his administrators, ‘Do you have an outline available for chapters 10 and 11? If not can you point me to one?’ Thank you for your work.
I don’t know how to reply to the initial article so forgive me. However there is one thing i would appreciate insight on. I agree with your ideas about pursuing righteousness by the works of the law versus faith even as referenced here in chapter 9. But this is as relates to initial salvation. That is there is nothing we have done by which we come to Christ as a basis of salvation. But this statement from above gives me pause “From the beginning this chapter has been about faith or works, not synergism or monergism. Salvation is all of God. But our sovereign God chooses to save those who pursue righteousness by faith rather than by works regardless of their nationality or morality.” Every case in the Bible where the eternal destiny of a person is determined it is based on works; not the works of the law, but of the spirit. Scripture explicitly teaches that doing righteous things does make one righteous. It is the subtle differentiation between coming to Christ and living in Christ.
Hello Gregg and welcome
.
You mentioned – a “subtle difference between coming to Christ and living in Christ”
.
Can you expound on what difference you envision?
.
Blessings
br.d
Thanks for the welcome. There are three types of works I note in Scripture. Works of the flesh, works of the law, and works of the Spirit. When we come to Christ we bring nothing to our salvation. This means we cannot say to God, I deserved to be saved because of something i have done. It is by His mercy and His grace but also because of our faith in what His Son has done for us. However, once we come to Christ, we are to follow where the Spirit leads. The Spirit leads us not only to obey the Spirit of the Law (ex. Matthew 5) but also to perform good works which bring glory to God. So the difference is that before coming to Christ no work (and there are only two choices here – works of the flesh and works of the law) is of any avail since we seem not to be able to keep the law always and fully. Hence faith is the only path to come to Christ. However, once we have come to Christ and have been indwelt, we now are able (although not forced) to do the works of the Spirit which He leads us into. As stated, these are righteous works because they are the work that God desires us to do and leads us into. Furthermore to my reading of Scripture and as stated in the previous post, ALL cases where the eternal destiny of an individual is set, it is based on works (and anecdotally with no mention of faith – ex. John 5:28-29, Romans 2:6-8, Galatians 6:7-9, and others). These are the works of the Spirit. Thus, the subtle difference is that before coming to Christ we cannot be justified through our own works or trying to fully keep the law which we seem unable to do. After coming to Christ however, we do righteous works (1 John 3:7) based on doing the work that God desires we do as led by the Spirit. This is also the basis of the justification referenced in James 2:21-25. Finally, just so there is clarity here, it seems improbable that anyone save the Lord himself can always do the will of God. To this end, it does not mean that we in anyway are saved by works alone. Abraham and Rahab needed to trust in the Lord because they could not fully keep the will of God in all things and at all times.
br.d
Hi Gregg,
I personally see a pattern in both the salvation process as well as the sanctification process.
Since I do not adopt Calvinism – my understanding of the relationship between the Holy Spirit and man is one in which obedience is expected of man.
.
For example – Moses is commanded to hold up his rod in front of the red sea
Moses does not have the power to part the red sea
But Moses does have the power to obey whatever God commands
In this case – God has a plan – and his plan is two-fold
1) Moses will hold up his rod
2) God himself will part the red sea
.
So the role which Moses (the human) is expected to assume in this case is obedience.
.
I personally see this pattern throughout all of the examples within scripture in which God performs some kind of miracle.
.
Jesus commands the lamb man to stand up
The Lamb man obeys
God heals the man’s body.
.
I also see this as a pattern within the N.T. concerning “obedience” to the faith or to the Gospel – which are one and the same thing.
.
There are about a dozen declarations within the N.T. in which man (just like Moses and the Lamb man were) is expected to obey – in the process believing upon the Lord.
.
Now if we are careful to observe the pattern which we find throughout scripture (as exemplified with Moses and the Lamb man) – then we understand man is not perform the WORK of salvation – any more than Moses was performing the WORK of parting the red sea.
.
God expects man to obey – which entails faith.
But humans cannot perform supernatural works
.
Personally – I see this conveyed by Paul where he writes to the Philippians
.
Being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus.
.
So the work that God began in the Philippian believers – was the work salvation.
And that same work is being carried forward until the day of Christ
.
blessings
br.d
br.d,
Last week I debated a guy on YouTube that believed that the book of James was telling the twelve tribes of believing Jews that they must still obey the law, because, as James states, faith without obeying the law is dead…
I’m like, wait a minute, that’s not what James means about the word works!! The only two examples that James gives is Abraham and Rahab. Both of those two were never ever under the law of Moses to begin with.
He didn’t get that. He kept insisting.
Abraham believed God’s promise that his seed would continue thru Issac. But God tells Abraham to kill Isaac.
He knew that God would have no choice but to raise Isaac from the dead in order for God to keep his promise.
Faith. His actions (works) of the sacrifice is what justified what he believed.
And that also goes with all of the examples that you layer out.
Abraham lived what he believed, otherwise he wouldn’t have done it.
In essence, work is what you do if you have faith.
If you believe a chair can hold you, your works is the action of sitting in the chair to prove that you have faith in the chair, and once you sit, your faith in the chair is justified.
I have no problem in obeying the holy spirit, but if you don’t, you are proving that you don’t believe the holy spirit.
Faith without works is dead, meaning that you have no faith, meaning no grace, meaning no salvation.
So, if Gregg is talking about works after salvation… your examples were spot on!
But just believing gets you righteousness. But you gotta put that belief in action (works).
Ed Chapman
br.d
I’ve heard things like this before from some teachers – who are typically classified as teachers of the LETTER which kills. They are a form of New Testament pharisee
.
The Pharisees of Jesus’ day were involved in various works such as the cleaning of pots etc.
.
New Testament pharisees – can be teachers who insist on things like:
– You will go to hell unless you read a black leather-bound KJV Bible
– You will go to hell if you are a man with a haircut longer than a butch
– You will go to hell if you are a woman and you wear pants
.
They will typically invent all sorts of requirements they will put on the shoulders of believers
.
Paul says – if you walk in the Spirit you shall not fulfill the lusts of the flesh.
The Greek word translated “Carnal” is σαρκικοῖς “sarkikós” (of the flesh)
.
Personally I see sarkikós in 2 predominant forms
1) Bodily flesh (as in lasciviousness)
2) Religious flesh (as in self righteousness)
.
Within scripture – there is a pattern – which I call the pattern of the two brothers.
– Cain vs Able
– Saul vs David
– Esau vs Jacob
– Pharisee vs Republican (Jesus’ parable)
.
Within the church – there have ever been men who have been identified as “Esau” Ministries
.
These ministries are commonly given senior pastoral positions by denomination leaders
These ministries “Bring Home he Bacon”
Which means they can sweet-talk money out of the pockets of the congregation
Denomination leaders will strategically place these ministries into wealthy churches.
.
Paul uses the analogy of Esau vs Jacob
Esau was capable in his own strength – he would always bring home the bacon
Jacob was dependent upon God.
.
Paul likens Esau to: “The sons of the flesh who always persecute the sons of the Spirit”
.
Thus religious flesh (which is typically works focused) is hostile to self-humility.
So i think we are on the same general page here which is why i drew the distinction between before coming to Christ and after. We come to Christ in faith and that ALONE is the basis of initial justification. As you have said, true faith produces works. But there is righteousness in doing what the Spirit leads us to do (1 John 3:7) and as stated, all places where the eternal destiny of an individual is determined, it is stated as based on works. We agree that a true faith produces works and that is the reason that when we are taught about how an individual’s eternal destiny is determined, works can be stated as the discriminator because a true and living faith produces them. Appreciate your discussion with the other person. From what i see, you are correct.
You got a name change! LOL.
First of all, DEFINE what faith even is. Hebrews 11:1 defines it. But most people don’t even know what Hebrews 11:1 even means, so, break it all down to the lowest dictionary definitions. The following is what you get:
Hebrews 11:1 (KJV) FAITH IS:
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Substance:
Strong’s Concordance Greek Ref #5287: Assurance
Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition defines assurance as: Pledge, Guarantee
Romans 8:24-25
For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for? But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it.
Hoped, Hope:
Strong’s Concordance Greek Ref #’s1679, 1680: Expectation or confidence
Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition defines hope as:
to expect with confidence; Expectation is defined as: Anticipation; Anticipation is defined as: The act of looking forward, and, visualization of a future event or state.
Hebrews 11:1
Now FAITH IS: The guarantee of things (substance/assurance) expected (hoped/waiting for).
Faith: Strong’s Concordance Greek Ref #4102:
Persuasion, i.e. credence. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition defines credence as: mental acceptance as true or real.
So…when you say: “We come to Christ in faith…”, what does THAT even mean?
It all goes back to ABRAHAM, in the PROMISES that was given to Abraham. So what was the promises?
Carnal:
Promised Land: Small Piece of Real Estate in the Middle East
Promised Singular Seed: Isaac
Who gets the promised land: The Seed of Isaac, through Jacob (as opposed to Ishmael/Esau).
Seal of Promise: Circumcision
Spiritual:
Promised Land: Heaven
Promised Singular Seed: Jesus
Who gets the Promised Land: Those who put faith in Jesus. Jesus is the way to the Promised Land
Seal of Promise: Holy Spirit
The same could be said about the story of Moses/Pharaoh:
The Pharaoh: Satan
Moses: Jesus, the REDEEMER
Egypt: BONDAGE TO SIN
Jesus telling Satan: LET MY PEOPLE GO
Wandering the Desert: Christian walk
Crossing the Jordan: Natural Death
Canaan: Entering the PROMISED LAND (HEAVEN).
Lot’s of stories in the Genesis account is TWOFOLD, or as some say, TYPE/SHADOW, telling a spiritual reality in a carnal story.
It’s all about the SPIRITUAL. It’s all about the Eternal, told in the mortal stories.
THE PROMISES GIVEN TO ABRAHAM WAS ETERNAL LIFE THROUGH JESUS, in that JESUS IS THE WAY TO ETERNAL LIFE.
That’s the faith being discussed. And we are PATIENTLY WAITING (HOPE) FOR THAT PROMISE. And if we have faith in the promise, we will LIVE that faith.
It’s not about being a GOODY TWO SHOES, as in THOU SHALT NOTS.
Our “works of righteousness” is no different than what I layed out with Abraham and THE CHAIR, and that is OBEY FAITH (aka “what you believe), which is why it’s called:
Romans 3:27
Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
In other words, as James shows, we LIVE WHAT WE BELIEVE, we don’t just SAY, with words, we put our faith into action.
I don’t know why people mention “GOOD” works, because “GOOD” works has nothing to do with what James even discussed. Even UNBELIEVERS do “GOOD” works. So when you say “Faith PRODUCES WORKS”, I get a bit squirmish as to what you mean by that. Faith does not PRODUCE works at all. You have to PUT that faith into action by DOING something. That kind of works JUSTIFIES what you believe.
Our only COMMANDMENT in the NT era is LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF, and by THAT ALONE, that suffices LOVE GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, MIND, SOUL.
Some in the Calvinist world have redefined the words FAITH, as well as “works”. If we say that we come to God by our own free will, and it’s OUR FAITH, not a given faith, then they will tell us that what we said is WORKS, or, OUR OWN MERIT. But that’s not true, either.
We were given a promise, and it is up to us ALONE to believe it, or not to believe it.
So, regarding GOOD LIVING…
Romans 13:9
For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Why “observe” Ten, when one will suffice? If you are observing “love your neighbor as yourself”, HOW CAN YOU violate any of the Ten? You can’t.
So, to end this diatribe of mine, what WORKS are you discussing?
Ed Chapman
You got a name change! LOL.
First of all, DEFINE what faith even is. Hebrews 11:1 defines it. But most people don’t even know what Hebrews 11:1 even means, so, break it all down to the lowest dictionary definitions. The following is what you get:
Hebrews 11:1 (KJV) FAITH IS:
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Substance:
Strong’s Concordance Greek Ref #5287: Assurance
Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition defines assurance as: Pledge, Guarantee
Romans 8:24-25
For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for? But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it.
Hoped, Hope:
Strong’s Concordance Greek Ref #’s1679, 1680: Expectation or confidence
Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition defines hope as:
to expect with confidence; Expectation is defined as: Anticipation; Anticipation is defined as: The act of looking forward, and, visualization of a future event or state.
Hebrews 11:1
Now FAITH IS: The guarantee of things (substance/assurance) expected (hoped/waiting for).
Faith: Strong’s Concordance Greek Ref #4102:
Persuasion, i.e. credence. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition defines credence as: mental acceptance as true or real.
So…when you say: “We come to Christ in faith…”, what does THAT even mean?
It all goes back to ABRAHAM, in the PROMISES that was given to Abraham. So what was the promises?
Carnal:
Promised Land: Small Piece of Real Estate in the Middle East
Promised Singular Seed: Isaac
Who gets the promised land: The Seed of Isaac, through Jacob (as opposed to Ishmael/Esau).
Seal of Promise: Circumcision
Spiritual:
Promised Land: Heaven
Promised Singular Seed: Jesus
Who gets the Promised Land: Those who put faith in Jesus. Jesus is the way to the Promised Land
Seal of Promise: Holy Spirit
The same could be said about the story of Moses/Pharaoh:
+++ The promises of God are received through faith. There are those in Scripture who did NOT receive the promises of God because they did not act consistent with their faith. It was not that they didn’t believe in God, its that that they acted in a manner inconsistent with what they claimed to believe.
The Pharaoh: Satan
Moses: Jesus, the REDEEMER
Egypt: BONDAGE TO SIN
Jesus telling Satan: LET MY PEOPLE GO
Wandering the Desert: Christian walk
Crossing the Jordan: Natural Death
Canaan: Entering the PROMISED LAND (HEAVEN).
Lot’s of stories in the Genesis account is TWOFOLD, or as some say, TYPE/SHADOW, telling a spiritual reality in a carnal story.
It’s all about the SPIRITUAL. It’s all about the Eternal, told in the mortal stories.
THE PROMISES GIVEN TO ABRAHAM WAS ETERNAL LIFE THROUGH JESUS, in that JESUS IS THE WAY TO ETERNAL LIFE.
That’s the faith being discussed. And we are PATIENTLY WAITING (HOPE) FOR THAT PROMISE. And if we have faith in the promise, we will LIVE that faith.
It’s not about being a GOODY TWO SHOES, as in THOU SHALT NOTS.
Our “works of righteousness” is no different than what I layed out with Abraham and THE CHAIR, and that is OBEY FAITH (aka “what you believe), which is why it’s called:
Romans 3:27
Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
In other words, as James shows, we LIVE WHAT WE BELIEVE, we don’t just SAY, with words, we put our faith into action.
I don’t know why people mention “GOOD” works, because “GOOD” works has nothing to do with what James even discussed. Even UNBELIEVERS do “GOOD” works. So when you say “Faith PRODUCES WORKS”, I get a bit squirmish as to what you mean by that. Faith does not PRODUCE works at all. You have to PUT that faith into action by DOING something. That kind of works JUSTIFIES what you believe.
+++ I am not sure that statement is scriptural. What is your scriptural basis that normal men produce good works? But with the idea that faith produces works, that statement is true. Your argument against that is semantical. Also, you have done violence to the language when you say that works justify what you believe. They provide evidence of what you believe. It is the works themself that justify which means there is an initial justification and a final justification. Even Calvin, with whom i disagree on so much, understood this.
Our only COMMANDMENT in the NT era is LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF, and by THAT ALONE, that suffices LOVE GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, MIND, SOUL.
+++1 John 3:18
Some in the Calvinist world have redefined the words FAITH, as well as “works”. If we say that we come to God by our own free will, and it’s OUR FAITH, not a given faith, then they will tell us that what we said is WORKS, or, OUR OWN MERIT. But that’s not true, either.
+++I never said that and don’t believe it. In fact, i said the opposite. Initial justification is by faith alone. Period.
We were given a promise, and it is up to us ALONE to believe it, or not to believe it.
+++ Agreed.
So, regarding GOOD LIVING…
Romans 13:9
For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Why “observe” Ten, when one will suffice? If you are observing “love your neighbor as yourself”, HOW CAN YOU violate any of the Ten? You can’t.
So, to end this diatribe of mine, what WORKS are you discussing?
pacejockey,
I’m still not understanding what YOU mean when YOU say, “+++ The promises of God are received through faith.”
What does FAITH mean to YOU?
You explain:
“There are those in Scripture who did NOT receive the promises of God because they did not act consistent with their faith. It was not that they didn’t believe in God, its that that they acted in a manner inconsistent with what they claimed to believe. ”
“WHO” in scripture are YOU discussing? And what do YOU mean by the word “ACTED”?
If you are discussing those UNDER THE LAW, then that is a DIFFERENT story. Rahab and Abraham were NOT ever under the law of Moses. So, please, do explain who you are discussing, and what is the “ACTED” that you are discussing?
Give a name…WHO?
I think for some reason you seem to be separating a promise of God, pre and post the law giving. Are you saying that God’s truthfulness changed after the law was given? The Israelites and Eli are two examples of people who did not have the faith, as shown by their actions, to receive what God promised them.
PS Faith is absolute trust. But it is not just an intellectual exercise. it is an action-oriented exercise. I don’t remember if you cited this but the idea is if you have faith in a bridge you will trust it to hold your weight as you traverse it. If you have faith in God, you will exercise that faith as well. This is what is shown throughout Scripture. But failure to do so, results in failure to receive God’s promises (ex. Hebrews 11:33, 6:12)
pacejockey,
You had said:
“+++ I am not sure that statement is scriptural. What is your scriptural basis that normal men produce good works?”
Matthew 5:44-47
44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
*************46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye?
*************do not even the publicans the same?
*************47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others?
*************do not even the publicans so?
Matthew 7:11-12
11 If ye then, being evil,
know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?
12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.
Luke 6:31
And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.
Giving good gifts and doing good are different. Many people will give to others to demonstrate their charity. Not out of love, but of self-recognition. But who is this written to? Perhaps Jewish Christians. Who was Jesus talking to in this context? Those following Him. In fact, we see the idea that we are taught to love those that persecute us. It does not mean that we apart from Christ we do good. I would not be so adamant so as to say that a person apart from Christ can never do a good thing, but that is the exception not the rule. I am sure you know Isaiah recognized this. The key is the motivation of the heart.
pacejockey,
1 John 3:18
That’s the LOVE THY NEIGHBOR AS THYSELF, which is treat others as you would want to be treated yourself.
Just a few verses later:
23 And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.
You make it more complicated than what it actually is.
Ed Chapman
We are to love God first; that is the first and greatest commandment. How does Scripture teach we love God? We obey Him. The rest of what you said i have no problem with.
I don’t know if we are too far apart here. The point is that man has the free will to follow or not follow where the Spirit leads. This is man’s responsibility before God and so salvation can be said to be only possible by God, but the idea that man has no accountability and can do anything he wants before God is errant. OMT I think that passage in Philippians is often grammatically misused. We tend to read into that Scripture what the good work is. I understand that passage to reference the good work as being the sharing of the gospel, not the work of salvation otherwise it causes conflicts with other Scripture.
br.d
Yes – I agree
On the subject of freedom of the will – the Calvinist does have a FORM of freedom.
In Calvinism – creation is ONLY free to be and do that which was infallibly decreed.
.
In Calvinism – a necessary condition for any event – is that that event must be decreed.
Calvin’s god must grant “Freedom” for that which he decrees
If he does not grant “Freedom” to that which he decrees – he is a house divided against himself.
.
But there is NO “Freedom” for that which is NOT decree
And there is NO “Freedom” for that which is contrary to the decree.
.
So if it is decreed that Calvinist_A will perform SIN_X at TIME-T
Then that decree must grant Calvinist_A “Freedom” to perform SIN_X at TIME-T
But Calvinist_A is NOT granted “Freedom” to NOT perform SIN_X at TIME-T
.
.
Outside of Calvinism – “Freedom” of the will – is defined as the ability to choose between ALTERNATIVE options.
.
So in Calvinism – where God says “Behold I set before you life and death choose life”
Calvin’s god in that case – is speaking deceptively.
He cannot set ALTERNATIVE options before man because an infallible decree does not grant any ALTERNATIVE
Therefore in Calvinism – humans do not have CHOICE in the matter of anything.
.
Calvinists want to claim they have CHOICE because to not have choice would mean that they do not have NORMAL human functionality.
.
But since an infallible decree never grants any ALTERNATIVE from that which it decrees – it follows – there is never any ALTERNATIVE available for man to choose.
.
Thanks!
And blessings!
br.d
Gregg,
Abraham – Before The Law of Righteousness:
Genesis 15:6
And he believed in the Lord; and he counted it to him for righteousness.
Jews – Under The Law of Righteousness:
Deuteronomy 6:25
And it shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before the Lord our God, as he hath commanded us.
But now…
Romans 3:21
But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
Romans 3:22
Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
Abraham got righteousness just by believing. Nothing more.
Romans 4:3
For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness
Galatians 3:6
Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.
James 2:23
And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
Ed Chapman
That is only PART of what Scripture says. If you don’t read it all, you will not get it. You ignored all the passages i quoted.
pacejockey,
You are correct, I did ignore those…for good reason. Believe me, I do get it. I’ve been at this for about 25 years.
Ed Chapman
I am sorry, if you do not understand what Scripture says you are going to mislead others. The fact that you admit you ignore part of Scripture says it all. You have apparently built, over your 25 years, a theology based on part of Scripture, the cardinal sin. Praying you find the truth. God bless.
pacejockey,
You have yet to answer my question regarding what YOUR definition of “works of righteousness” are, by you referencing 1 John 3:7.
I told you what it is, and that is OBEYING FAITH, because it’s the LAW OF FAITH. You seem to turn it around to GOOD WORKS, so of course I would ignore 1 John 3:7 as GOOD WORKS.
I’m still curious as to WHAT WORKS ARE YOU DISCUSSING?
Pacejockey,
Are you discussing walking grannie across the street, opening the car door for your girlfriend/wife, feeding the hungry, walking the dog, clothing the poor…what works are you discussing? Atheists do all those things and more.
Ed Chapman
It has to do with being led by the Spirit and doing what He leads us to do. it is not a checklist of works to be completed. But he also leads us to also keep the Spirit of the Law, and not the letter. We agree that if we are keeping the first and greatest commandment and the second which is like it, we fulfill the commandments.
pacejockey,
Love your neighbor as yourself IS the spirit of the law. Abraham never had the law at all. Neither did Rahab.
again, i am not sure what your point is. God is the one who drew the comparisons since He inspired James. Abraham and Rahab were justified by what they DID, after being justified for what they believed according to Scripture. I said nothing about the law per se except that the Holy Spirit does lead us to adhere to the Spirit of the Law.
In fact I would go so far as to say that the books of Jeremiah and Isaiah ….if read without the Calvinistic lens of “we know it does not mean what it says”…. are the 1-2 punch for a knockout of all things deterministic.
Together they show a picture of the Sovereign LORD, the Almighty, the King of Israel saying over and over that He is sovereign despite what man does/chooses and despite His deciding to react to man’s decisions.
This is a nice little outline, thanks for posting it. We’re going through Romans in a group at church and this will be good to look at once I get to that chapter. I’ll be recommending your book, too.
Maybe this has already been pointed out, but I think it is helpful to bear in mind that in chapter 9 Paul was addressing the theology of Pharisic Judaism. If someone (a calvinist) is going to argue that Paul is engaging with anything remotely Arminian, they must first show that Pharisaic Judaism is fundamentally homologous with Arminianism. And that is an utterly absurd proposition.
This is extremely helpful, Leighton, I really need to get a hold of your book!
Deborah… the following thoughts might help also… very much in agreement with Leighton.
Overview of Romans 9
It would help if the context of Christ-like love for all the lost, demonstrated in Paul from verses 1-3 were recognized before reading the rest. It would also help to note that no verse mentions election before creation in this chapter, but that there is a “seed” that is currently being reckoned (present tense) in verse 6.
It also would help if it wouldn’t be skipped over so easily that God’s purpose in hardening Pharoah was so that God’s Name would spread over ALL the earth in verse 17. And it would be helpful to read each time the phrases “will have mercy” and “will harden” more fully and literally as He will have mercy/harden with whom He “should” and “wants to” have mercy and harden.
That should lead the reader to wonder on whom then “should” God have mercy or on whom does God “want” to have mercy. It is easy to discover that He wants His mercy to be on a people who were not His “people” or “beloved” before. This excludes the idea of a loved elect individual person before creation (besides Christ) being read into verses 25-26. But God will have mercy on those on whom He grants His righteousness which they pursued and came to possess through faith (vs 32). In fact He will have some kind of mercy on all (11:32), giving all a sufficient opportunity to hear His call to them to seek Him (10:18).
The biggest confusion a Calvinist has is in not seeing that God’s sovereign choice of individuals according to Romans 9 was to help fulfill His promise of salvation in Christ, but it did not guarantee their personal salvation or damnation. The prophecy – Jacob have I loved and Esau have I hated – did not guarantee the salvation of Jacob or of everyone in Israel, nor did it guarantee the damnation of Esau and of everyone in Edom.
Here is evidence that Esau later became a believer and that any Edomites were welcome to become believers also.
Gen 33:4, 10
But Esau ran to meet Jacob and embraced him; he threw his arms around his neck and kissed him. And they wept….
“No, please!” said Jacob. “If I have found favor in your eyes, accept this gift from me. For to see your face is like seeing the face of God, now that you have received me favorably.
Deut 23:7-8
Do not despise an Edomite, for the Edomites are related to you. Do not despise an Egyptian, because you resided as foreigners in their country. The third generation of children born to them may enter the assembly of the Lord.
Who does Esau remind you of in 33:4? Hint Luke 15:20.
Hi Brian,
Yes, thanks, I have always loved the account of Esau and Jacob reconciling! And thank you for the comparison of Esau with the prodigal son from the Luke account. Never thought about that!
Something interesting I have been thinking about: God often chooses the second-born or the younger son for His service. He chose Jacob instead of Esau before they were even born. He chose Joseph, the son of the second wife, instead of any of Leah’s sons. Even Isaac was a kind-of “second-born” son, since Ishmael was Abraham’s firstborn. David was the last of all of Jesse’s sons. The prodigal son was the younger son. The pattern exists throughout the Bible. (Able was the second of Adam’s sons, etc.) Why does God do this? I think it is to represent the reality of the First Covenant and the Second Covenant, the contrast between the “ministry of death” and the “ministry of life,” the weakness of the first covenant: the Law, and the eternal strength of the second covenant: the Spirit. And then there is the beautiful analogy of the First Man — Adam, and the Second Man — Jesus. The first man brought death to all men, the second man brought Life to all men.
I mention this to illustrate that Paul’s point in Romans, when he says, “Jacob have I loved, Esau have I hated,” has nothing to do with the personal salvation of these two men, and is not meant to support Calvin’s theology. For that matter, God Himself chose Jacob instead of Esau not because of anything remotely related to Calvinistic soteriology, but as a kind of living prophecy pointing to the New Covenant He was going to establish through Christ — righteousness apart from the Law! I would never have seen and understood these things if it hadn’t been for Leighton’s patient labor through this blog to turn the light of understanding on in Romans. I myself have used this passage many times to support Reformed theology. I now see how foolish it was to think this passage was there to support Calvin’s soteriology. I had missed the entire point. I didn’t understand Romans at all.
Thank you, Deborah, for sharing your good insights in such a humble fashion. I am sure they will be a blessing to others when they read them. The choice of the lesser to confound the greater is certainly confirmed throughout Scripture… but so is the idea of the importance of the “firstborn”… I had to say that in case any “firstborns” were feeling left out as seemingly unimportant in God’s economy. ;-).
It is very encouraging to see how God still worked with Ishmael as well as with Esau, and even reached out with sufficient grace to both, and to Cain, I believe, in offering him sufficient mercy for repentance, which he evidently rejected.
I was actually the youngest of three boys. I don’t know if there were any important third sons in Scripture… though Seth now comes to mind… and maybe Shem… though probably Ham was the youngest of the three, which isn’t too encouraging! 😉 Thankfully I know that my worth in great in Christ and my calling to serve Him have their own rewards!
Hi Brian,
Heh heh, yeah, I’m a second-born with an older sister, so maybe I secretly like it that God switches it up? Can’t say I feel sorry if first-borns feel left out, they get all the attention anyway, lol. But you are right, there is a Biblical theme regarding the firstborn. Curious what your insights are on that? I think the idea of the firstborn in the Bible holds a separate meaning from what God is illustrating with switching up the birth orders at times.
I agree with you, though, it’s heart-warming to see how, when it comes to a personal relationship with Ishmael, Esau, Cain, etc., God clearly loves them deeply and always holds out his hands to them for relationship and salvation, whether temporal or eternal. The accounts of God’s interactions with these men show us that while he rejected them for a specific vocation, in no way did he reject them for a personal relationship with Him! I have heard devout (Calvinist) men speak about Ishmael like he is the plague of history. I know I pointed out one time (being yet a Calvinist myself) that God clearly loved and blessed Ishmael.
Anyway, Brian, thank you again for being the voice of reason on this website, in so many ways, I always enjoy reading your comments and I confess I skip over everyone else to get to yours at times, lol . . .
Thank you, Deborah of the kind and encouraging words. Yes, “firstborn” is a separate issue… and it’s interesting that it does not have to be a term to mean “first” in time, but “first” in priority instead. Israel is called that, not being the first nation God created… and Ephraim is called that, not being the first son of Joseph (but the second… ;-)) and not the first tribe in Israel either, of course. But Levi was the third son… (like me) lol, and chosen to represent all of Israel!
Ishmael’s mother was the first recorded post flood theophany… though there were probably others prior… maybe even Job’s. And he was there to bury Abraham with Isaac. The truth seems to have been preserved among the Ishmaelite [who basically merge with or are absorbed by the Midianites it seems] until the time of Moses’ grandfather, a priest of Midian (Ex 2:16, 18:12).
I’ll check that out, thanks!
A relative newcomer to the YouTube channel and site, I came looking a sound response after read/skimming this article at the gospel coalition – Romans-9-anticipates-objections-unconditional-election – by Justin Dellehay. Simply reading the last paragraph of Mr. Dillehay’s article made me sick to my stomach; it was aggressive and ungracious and tone-deaf in regard to textual analysis.
Thanks to Dr. Flowers for presenting and generously sharing such a thorough and straightforward treatment of the text. I look forward to reading a copy of his book.
Welcome N Baird!
The Dellehay article made me sick to my stomach too.