CHAPTER 9 – notes not complete

1    I say truth in Christ; I am not lying; my conscience testifying to me in (lit: “in spirit holy”) Holy Spirit,

αληθειαν λεγω εν χριστω ου ψευδομαι συμμαρτυρουσης μοι της συνειδησεως μου εν πνευματι αγιω

It is important to note that Paul speaks as a man led by the Holy Spirit. Where he tells us that he is speaking his own words, we are to believe that he means what he says, and they are not God’s word to him. But where he speaks as from God or says he is telling us what God says, we must accept his words as the word of God, and engage what he says accordingly.

2    that sorrow to me is great and unceasing pain to (in) my heart,

οτι λυπη μοι εστιν μεγαλη και αδιαλειπτος οδυνη τη καρδια μου

Assuring his audience of the sincerity of his feelings, Paul confessed extreme grief over the lostness of his ‘brothers according to the flesh, which are the nation of Israel. Certain among professing Christians of today claim that we are justified in hating the unsaved because God hates sinners, and since they remain lost through unbelief, God hates them. Certainly Paul could have made an argument concerning the failure of the Jews to recognize and receive their Messiah when He came, and therefore they deserved to remain impaired from any possibility of repentance and forgiveness; after all, the Jews were those who had historically received special consideration by God for the faithfulness of their national father, Abraham, and God’s promise to him to bring nations from his loins, particularly through his promised, miraculous son, Isaac. They had heard the voice of God, seen His mighty hand in miracles, signs, and wonders such that they were without excuse for their unfaithfulness. In fact, throughout their history, they insisted that they did believe in the living and true God of their fathers, and that they did have faith. Despite such self-profession, God clearly condemned the nation as a group for unfaithfulness throughout most of their history, which meant that those who claimed to know were completely responsible for their own failure to truly acknowledge God as God, and live accordingly. Consequently, they could be said to have earned the loss of favour, and a loss of consideration in God’s plan of salvation for the world, that they deserved to be abandoned as they had abandoned God as a nation, and that any form of pity for their lost condition is not only unwarranted, but could be considered an affront against God, as though judging Him for having condemned them.

Such an attitude fails to consider that all non-Jews are descendants of men and women who early in history likewise refused the living and true God, Whom they also had known, preferring idols of their own creation and the pursuit of their own ideas and desires. Certainly the successive generations of Gentiles since the early days of Abraham’s tribe, and long before Abraham was born, were just as rebellious with full knowledge of the Truth, just as guilty, and therefore just as deserving of condemnation. In no way were the self-made pagans less worthy of abandonment than were the Jews of Paul’s day; as those Jews were lost by their own refusal of the true God, so every generation of men from every tribe and nation have been likewise guilty of personal and national rejection of the true God, and thereby as justified for condemnation as any faithless Jew.

The arrogance of such a suggestion as that of God’s having given Israel up because of her sin belies a total lack of understanding or appreciation of what exactly Christ did for lost sinners as a whole; that noone is righteous in God’s eyes, that all of us like they, have gone astray, everyone following his own way, but the LORD laid upon Him the iniquity of all of us – Jew and Gentile alike. The Gentiles from the beginning to the present day have no claim to righteousness apart from Christ, and there is not one man living now, nor has ever been, who has any business thinking themselves living in sin as somehow more precious to God than any other lost sinner. Only by being a lesser sinner might someone possibly qualify for such special consideration, but every sin is first a rebellion against God as God, as Paul described earlier in this letter. The sins of that person suggesting that, since they are presently lost, any sinner is outside of God’s favour, and should be reviled by God’s church, are by no means less serious than those they revile. Their unfaithfulness is no less rebellious than that of their detested brother, and their wickedness was covered by no less cost than that the holy, righteous Lord of Lords took upon Himself human flesh, and lived among men so that He could suffer the penalty of a criminal’s execution, which He would then accept and receive as the payment for the sins of men who would receive Him.

If such hatred by saints toward sinners was reasonable or expected by God, Paul apparently knew nothing about it. Paul’s heart ached for those of his fellow countrymen who had failed, by the time he was writing, to recognize or receive Jesus as their Messiah and Saviour of their souls. Paul loved the lost, and went out of his way, enduring all manner of difficulties and deprivations, in order to both seek out and find his fellow Israelites in every place he visited, to engage them in synagogue and marketplace as often as possible, to show them from the Scriptures – limited at that time to the Old Testament, or the Tanach as the Jews would have known it – that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of the living God.

3    For I was wishing (used to wish? imp.) I myself (anathema) *accursed or dedicated/dedication* to be from (possibly “by” or “for”) Christ over (for the sake of) my brothers, my relatives (family; kinfolk) according to flesh,

ηυχομην γαρ αυτος εγω αναθεμα ειναι απο του χριστου υπερ των αδελφων μου των συγγενων μου κατα σαρκα

Paul has not said that he did wish to be cut off from Christ, nor that his being cut off would have any influence on other men’s salvation. Some commentators understand Paul to have meant that he could wish himself cut off from Christ, if his being cut off would bring about the salvation of the nation of Israel, that he could almost be willing to sacrifice himself to gain the company of his people. Others begin from the point of reference of God having rejected Israel and turned to the Gentiles to complete His redemptive plan in the world, perhaps believing that Paul was grieved that God had rejected the nation, and he could almost be willing to lose his own salvation to gain back that nation’s favour with God.

Since the first several thousand members of the Church of Jesus Christ were ethnic Jews, God clearly did not ‘reject Israel’ and replace that nation in His redemptive plan with all those who are non-Israel. As we have seen by Paul’s careful exposition – one of the major points of this particular letter, as well as those to the Ephesians and the Colossians – God’s redemption is offered to all of humanity, both the Jew and the Gentile, on the same terms and by the same means to all. While the first proposition is plausible, that given Paul’s great love and compassion for the lost, and his fervent love for his countrymen, he was tempted to desire his own destruction if it could win his nation, I believe there is a better understanding that is more consistent with the text, and with what we know of Paul.

Because Paul consistently disavowed every benefit and relationship for the blessing of being in Christ[1], the proposition that he would consider the idea of repudiating Christ if it would gain someone else’s salvation doesn’t measure up. There was nothing in this world that Paul desired more than Christ, and while some would argue that this very fact provides the emphasis Paul intended the reader to understand by his statement, it is more probable that Paul means something else.

*According to Strong’s concordance and classical use, the Greek term anathema refers to something that has been set aside to God or to a god, as an offering, that cannot be redeemed from sacrifice. Because something vowed to a god was not redeemable, and in most cases the sacrifice was a living creature that would be killed, the extended idea of being accursed is also applied to the word anathema, but it is neither the only nor the primary meaning. It is most likely, and most consistent both with Paul as a man and apostle, and with the context of his comments concerning Israel’s condition before God, that Paul is here declaring that he wished that he had been set apart and dedicated to God for the purpose of winning his fellow countrymen to Christ. The sense of his statement may be understood either as his urgent desire to sacrifice his life for the salvation of Jews through his gospel ministry, or his expression that he wished that God, Who had set him apart for ministry to the Gentiles, had rather or additionally set him apart in ministry to the Jews. Paul certainly bore no animosity or apathy toward the Gentiles, nor did Paul consider them either less eligible or less needful of the gospel, but rather, his burden for the Jews was so great that he desired the opportunity to be to them as he was to the Gentiles, for their salvation. Whichever of these two understandings represents Paul’s intention in his statement, the most important point that he is making is his complete willingness to be dedicated, and his life sacrificed, to the purpose of winning Israel to their Messiah.[2]

331 anathema – AV-accursed 4, anathema 1, bind under a great curse + 332 1; 6

1) a thing set up or laid by in order to be kept

1a) specifically, an offering resulting from a vow, which after being consecrated to a god was hung upon the walls or columns of the temple, or put in some other conspicuous place

2) a thing devoted to God without hope of being redeemed, and if an animal, to be slain; therefore a person or thing doomed to destruction

2a) a curse

2b) a man accursed, devoted to the direst of woes

4   Who are Israelites of whom (whose) (is) the adoption (lit: sonship) and the glory and the covenants and the law-giving and the service (latreia) and the promises;

οιτινες εισιν ισραηλιται ων η υιοθεσια και η δοξα και αι διαθηκαι και η νομοθεσια και η λατρεια και αι επαγγελιαι

As has been previously discussed, the nation of Israel had been gifted with the direct revelation and miraculous provision of God. God offered Himself as a Father to the people,[3] making them as sons to Himself. Only Israel was invited into the service of God, and to Israel were the promises given – of a nation, of a kingdom, of a King, of a redeemer. To Israel was The Law given to set them apart from the idolatrous nations around them. To Israel were the prophets born, who would tell the world of God’s plan and purpose for His creation, and the coming glory of His kingdom.

5   Of whom (whose) (are) the fathers, and out of whom the Christ according to flesh, the One being above (lit: on; epi) all, God blessed into the ages (forever). Amen. (could also properly be read: the One being above all blessed God into the ages – as an affirmation of Christ being the eternal God)

ων οι πατερες και εξ ων ο χριστος το κατα σαρκα ο ων επι παντων θεος ευλογητος εις τους αιωνας αμην

The “fathers” – the forefathers of the nation, of the kingdom of God, of the Messiah, the Saviour of the World; all of these belong to Israel, the sons of Abraham, the friend of God.[4]Israel was privileged and honoured by God for the sake of their father, whose faith in God earned him the blessing of nations and kingdoms.

Moreover, the Christ of God was born of Israel – son of a daughter of Jacob through the line of David, Jesus the man comes from the Jews. Yet Jesus the man is also the Christ of God, and is higher than any man, or angel, or other being. Jesus Christ is YHWH come in flesh, eternal throughout all ages both prior and to come,[5] and surpasses the fathers, the prophets, and the nation of Israel itself.

The structure of Paul’s sentence permits an alternate understanding: rather than his meaning that Christ is over all others, the sentence may have been intended to be understood as Christ came according to the flesh from the nation of Israel, but that He was above all other things – born of Israel, promised Saviour & Christ – the blessed, eternal God. Both statements are factually correct; the question pertains to which understanding was intended by Paul, either one being grammatically and factually possible.

6    Yet not such as the word of God has fallen out (ekpeptoken out + fall; sense of having been). For not all the ones (hoi – those) out of Israel (are) these Israel:

ουχ οιον δε οτι εκπεπτωκεν ο λογος του θεου ου γαρ παντες οι εξ ισραηλ ουτοι ισραηλ

3634 οἵος hoios             probably akin to 3588, 3739, and 3745; ; pron     AV-such as 6, as 3, which 2, what manner 1, so as 1, what manner of man 1, what 1; 15

1) what sort of, what manner of, such as

1601 ἐκπίπτω ekpipto   from 1537 and 4098;  v    AV-fall 7, fall off 2, be cast 1, take none effect 1, fall away 1, fail 1, vr fallen 1; 14

1) to fall out of, to fall down from, to fall off

2) metaph.

2a) to fall from a thing, to lose it

2b) to perish, to fall

2b1) to fall from a place from which one cannot keep

2b2) fall from a position

2b3) to fall powerless, to fall to the ground, be without effect

2b3a) of the divine promise of salvation

 

4098 πίπτω pipto a reduplicated and contracted form of peto, (which occurs only as an alternate in certain tenses), probably akin to 4072 through the idea of alighting; v    AV-fall 69, fall down 19, light 1, fail 1; 90

1) to descend from a higher place to a lower

1a) to fall (either from or upon)

1a1) to be thrust down

1b) metaph. to fall under judgment, came under condemnation

2) to descend from an erect to a prostrate position

2a) to fall down

2a1) to be prostrated, fall prostrate

2a2) of those overcome by terror or astonishment or grief or under the attack of an evil spirit or of falling dead suddenly

2a3) the dismemberment of a corpse by decay

2a4) to prostrate one’s self

2a5) used of suppliants and persons rendering homage or worship to one

2a6) to fall out, fall from i.e. shall perish or be lost

2a7) to fall down, fall into ruin: of buildings, walls etc.

2b) to be cast down from a state of prosperity

2b1) to fall from a state of uprightness

2b2) to perish, i.e come to an end, disappear, cease

2b2a) of virtues

2b3) to lose authority, no longer have force

2b3a) of sayings, precepts, etc.

2b4) to be removed from power by death

2b5) to fail of participating in, miss a share in

Some might argue that, because many members of the nation of Israel have been unfaithful, some died as punishment for their sins, while others lived idolatrous, wicked lives that appeared to have gone unchecked by God, that Israel had lost the promises made to them, or that God’s word had failed. God’s word cannot fail, although it may appear to some that it has. Paul begins to explain.

“For not all out of Israel are these Israel”. To whom does “these Israel” refer? Most commentators explain that being physically born of Jacob and his descendants makes someone national Israel, but being born again in faith toward God makes anyone ‘spiritual Israel’. But Paul is speaking specifically about national Israel; he is not talking about Gentiles here. The majority of national Israel believed themselves appointed to God by birth, by being the offspring of a particular man: their father Jacob. But God promised several things to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Abraham’s promises were given because of his demonstrated faith toward God, but Isaac and Jacob’s promises were given based upon the requirement of their demonstration of faith through their obedience to God’s precepts.

In Genesis 26, God spoke to Isaac, telling him not to go to Egypt, but to live in the land God told him, and God would be with him and bless him. The blessing to Isaac was conditional upon his obedience to God’s requirement to live in the land God prescribed to him. Note that God’s promise to Abraham was an everlasting promise; the exercise of the condition affected only Isaac, not the succession of Abraham’s descendants. If Isaac had chosen to disobey God in this matter, Isaac would have lost God’s blessing in this context, but God’s covenant with Abraham to give him this land, to make of him a nation, to raise kingdoms from his body, and the prophetic reference to the seed by whom all nations would be blessed, would not be hindered; only Isaac would not have experienced the outworking of the covenant in his personal life. But Isaac did obey God – the evidence or demonstration of his faith toward God – and God confirmed His covenant with Isaac: “…fear not, for I am with you and will bless you and multiply your seed for my servant Abraham’s sake.” (v 24)

Jacob began in a different vein than his father and grandfather, living by deceit and manipulation of others for his personal gain.  Whereas Isaac honoured his father, Jacob and his mother conspired to deceive his father in order to gain his brother’s blessing, having already divested him of his birthright. While his father spoke his blessing upon Jacob, God presented Himself to Jacob in his escape from his brother’s anger, before Jacob gave indication of seriously considering God as God. Upon encountering the living God, Who promised to bless him, Jacob was frightened and ‘vowed a vow’ that if God would really what He had promised, that Jacob would have God as his God to serve and honour Him.[6] God honoured Jacob for two decades while he worked for his father-in-law, Laban, through which time Jacob gave testimony to the faithfulness and justice of God in prospering him in his work. Jacob became a God-fearing, God-trusting man, and God blessed him as He had promised, and returned him to his father’s house in peace, as Jacob had asked him to do when he first ran away.

“These Israel” then, would properly be understood as those members from Jacob’s body who had, like their father, grandfather, and great-grandfather, acknowledged the living God as God, and chosen to trust and obey God as God. To all of Jacob’s children who had, or do have faith in God, God’s promise remains to bring them into that new Jerusalem made without hands, where the light is the Lamb Who has taken away the world’s sin. God has selected from Israel a subset of those who have faith in Him, a people which was chosen on the basis of their faith, out of a people identified by their human lineage.

7    Neither because they are seed of Abraham (are) all children: but, ‘In Isaac shall seed be called to you.’

ουδ οτι εισιν σπερμα αβρααμ παντες τεκνα αλλ εν ισαακ κληθησεται σοι σπερμα

Continuing the illustration of the appointment of a people, Paul focuses now on the promise and the miracle of God’s provision. Certainly all of Abraham’s natural children are Abraham’s children, but these are not the children God specifically promised to him as God’s miraculous provision. It is not impossible for an old man to father children, so Abraham did not strictly require God’s intervention in natural circumstances to enable Abraham to father children by a woman who was fertile. Abraham having children by a concubine would require no faith on Abraham’s part; just the physical participation in a purely natural activity.

But God promised Abraham a seed from his proper wife Sarah, a woman who had never borne during her youth, and was now many years past the time that women can conceive children. Only through the miraculous intervention of the living God would Sarah ever be able to have a child, and this is the promise that Abraham had to accept by faith. God did not call Abraham to take matters into his own hands; God told Abraham that God would give him a son, from whom God would raise up a people to Abraham, and bring a blessing to all the nations of the earth. (even here, God has shown His intention from the outset to provide a redemption, not only for the sons of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but for all the world who would receive it.)

8    This is not the children of the flesh, these children of God, but the children of the promise He reckons into seed.

τουτεστιν ου τα τεκνα της σαρκος ταυτα τεκνα του θεου αλλα τα τεκνα της επαγγελιας λογιζεται εις σπερμα

So, in accordance with God’s promise, God counted the “seed” of Abraham only among those provided from God’s hand through divine intervention in the natural order of things, and the physical reality of Abraham and Sarah’s life. The “children of God” are those whom God provided from the body of Abraham, to be a special people to Himself.

9    For the word of promise (is) this: ‘According to this season I shall come, and to Sarah shall be a son.’

επαγγελιας γαρ ο λογος ουτος κατα τον καιρον τουτον ελευσομαι και εσται τη σαρρα υιος

“The word of promise is” that God would visit Sarah and give her a son. Abraham did not need to make a baby with a fertile woman; God would raise a natural son through supernatural means to a natural man, to honour the man’s faith and to show God’s mercy and compassion; to create from a faithful father a people dedicated to God, and a people from whom He would ultimately raise His Chosen King and Saviour.

We know that God honours the true marriage that He established ‘in the beginning’. While some argument could be made for His accommodation of man’s deviation from God’s purpose and plan for mankind’s life, even if God accommodates, He does not approve those things contrary to His purpose. God promised Abraham a proper son, a son from his own wife. This son would not be ‘illegitimate’, but a full son with a full birthright. Neither Abraham’s nor Sarah’s old age were impediments to God, nor Sarah’s barrenness. Rather, her barrenness worked for God’s purpose to provide a God-ordained child of promise, and to ensure that only His power and divine intervention could have ever provided Abraham with such a blessing.

God also honoured Sarah in this decree. As it has historically been considered a slight against a woman if she failed to bear children, and in many cultures considered a reflection of some wrongfulness in her character or conduct that brought a curse on her that she be barren, the woman in this culture was often shamed if she had no child. While it is not clear whether the culture had become so harsh by Abraham’s day, it is likely that at least some, including herself, may have wondered in what manner sarah was inadequate that she lack a natural child. God elevated Sarah to a place of honour, honouring her role as wife to Abraham, in bringing her maternity through her husband. God’s blessing was to Abraham, but it was also to Sarah.

10  Yet not only, but also Rebecca having conceived by one (lit: out of one bed), our father Isaac –

ου μονον δε αλλα και ρεβεκκα εξ ενος κοιτην εχουσα ισαακ του πατρος ημων

The “word of promise” was not only that God would visit Sarah to bring her a son, but also to Rebecca that the twins in her womb would father great nations, as the greater would serve the lesser. The word of promise came first to Abraham and Sarah, but it also came to Rebecca concerning the children that she bore.

God does not communicate directly and verbally with every parent of children, or even with every faithful person.

11  For not as yet being born, nor yet practising any good or evil, that the purpose according to choice of God (God’s choice) may remain, not out of works, but the One calling (the Caller)

μηπω γαρ γεννηθεντων μηδε πραξαντων τι αγαθον η κακον ινα η κατ εκλογην του θεου προθεσις μενη ουκ εξ εργων αλλ εκ του καλουντος

God spoke to Rebecca while her children were still in her womb. Paul’s whole presentation was directed to resolving two points of tension: that no one was justified by God based on their works, but by faith toward Him, and that His justification was applied to the Jew by the same faith as it was applied to the Gentile. Paul now reminds his readers that neither child had had the opportunity to do anything by which they might merit or ‘earn’ either the blessing or condemnation of the LORD. God did not choose the better child, or he who had done the most service; rather He called to Jacob as an adult, and Jacob chose to believe Him, as his grandfather Abraham had done many decades before. God’s purpose was to establish a people of faith, and He began with a faithful father.

As his reference to God’s words to Rebecca confirms, Paul has continued speaking about the nation of Israel in this verse, and it is imperative to keep the context in view. God chose Israel to be a people unto Himself by virtue of their descent from their faithful forefather. God chose Jacob’s offspring to serve Him because their father Jacob responded in faith to God’s call.

12  it was said to her, ‘The greater (possibly elder) shall serve the lesser (elassoni – inferior; possibly younger).’

ερρηθη αυτη οτι ο μειζων δουλευσει τω ελασσονι

God prophesied to Rebecca before her children were born that the greater would serve the lesser. God did not specify why the greater would serve the lesser, but again the context is imperative to understanding what God was telling her. Genesis 25:23 reads: “And YHWH said to [Rebecca], ‘Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples shall be separated from your bowels, and (one) people shall be stronger than (one) people, and the greater shall serve the lesser.” The greater nation would serve the lesser nation; God did not say that one individual son would serve the other. The Scripture does not show either brother ‘serving’ the other at any time, making it false to impose that interpretation onto the words written in Paul’s text. The prophesy concerned two peoples or nations, not two individuals.

It is also incorrect to arbitrarily translate the original text from either Genesis or Romans, into the words ‘elder’ and ‘younger’. The words in both Hebrew and Greek are not older and younger, but greater and lesser. While it is possible to use those words to refer to age, the passage specifically speaks about nations, not individuals, and the ‘nations’ that grew from the children of each of Esau and Jacob began at the same time as one another, and developed at roughly the same rate; it is impossible to refer to one people as being older or younger than the other. It is, however completely reasonable and accurate to refer to one nation being greater or lesser than the other; those terms could be in reference to any number of aspects such as size, prestige, land ownership, or power.

We must keep in mind that many nations were called by an early father’s name, and those that were not were often referred to by their father’s name in the text of Scripture, long after their patron had died. Context must be permitted to determine whether we understand the use of the paternal name to refer to the original individual, or to the nation that came from that man. Because Paul is comparing the situation concerning each of ethnic Israel and that of ethnic Gentiles, we must keep in mind his context when following the development of his teaching.

13  According as it has been written, ‘The Jacob I loved, yet the Esau I hated.’

καθως γεγραπται τον ιακωβ ηγαπησα τον δε ησαυ εμισησα

Whereas Paul quoted from Genesis 25 in verse 12 in his reference to God’s prophetic word to Rebecca, His statement that He ‘had loved” Jacob, but hated Esau was not made to Rebecca, or to Isaac, but was made by YHWH to Malachi several hundreds of years after Rebecca, Jacob, and Esau were dead. Whenever a New Testament author or speaker refers to or quotes from an Old Testament passage, it is necessary to read the text from which it was taken, in its full context, to ascertain the meaning.

Malachi opens with the LORD affirming His love toward Israel, and confronting them with their disregard of His love:

“I have loved you,’ says YHWH. ‘Yet you say, “In what have You loved us?” Was not Esau Jacob’s brother?’ says YHWH. ‘Yet I loved Jacob and I hated Esau, and made his mountains desolate and his inheritance to the dragons of the wilderness.’” God proceeds to recount Edom’s rebellious attitude against God, and God’s intention that He will not tolerate Edom’s efforts to stand against Him. But how did the nations that arose from these two men arrive at a place where God was destroying one while blessing the other? Why indeed could God not bless both nations equally? Both their parentage and the current state of each nation played into God’s rejection of Esau.

As Jacob was a man who sought a birthright to which he was not entitled, and a blessing from both his earthly and heavenly father, while Esau despised his birthright, considering it worth less than the gratification of a physical discomfort, Jacob was preferred by God over Esau. While we must use caution in hypothesizing about what might be different if characters in Scripture had made different choices, we see Esau losing his father’s blessing after that son demonstrated his disdain toward his inheritance. What meaningful blessing could his father provide him apart from the blessing of his inheritance? An human father has no power over eternal matters, and this son had abandoned those earthly riches and responsibilities over which his father had jurisdiction. There was nothing for Isaac to offer Esau but leftovers.

But Esau’s attitude toward his inheritance had deeper implications as far as God’s plan was concerned. How could God bless a man who would despise a blessing that he had in hand? As easily as Esau surrendered his material wealth and position for a bowl of stew, he would not likely appreciate a divine inheritance that he could not even see. Remember Esau’s melodramatic question of what good would his birthright be to him if he died? (Gen 25:32) Esau was home from the field; he was not so far removed from a meal that his life was at risk, even if he did feel faint from hunger. If he refused Jacob’s manipulation, he could still have had food well before any risk of starvation, although his discomfort may have continued a little longer. But Esau wanted immediate relief, without concern for long-term consquences. He was not at mortal risk; but he was prepared to lose his provision for life, in order to relieve his immediate displeasure. This disregard for the father’s blessing and provision – which mirrored Adam’s disregard of God’s blessing and provision when he chose to eat of the fruit he had been prohibited from eating – was a character God did not approve in which He would not entrust His everlasting blessing.

Whereas Jacob sought a wife from among his own people, Esau married wives from nations in open rebellion against God, wicked, violent, and idolatrous. Esau married a Canaanite, a Hittite, and a Hivite; three people groups whom God would eliminate from the earth because of the degree of their evil. Yoking himself among such people by marrying their women showed that Esau had no real regard for the God of his fathers, the true and living God.

But Esau’s children were worse than their forefather. Esau received his brother Jacob with pleasantness and grace when Jacob returned from serving his father-in-law. Esau could have been bitter, but he had prospered while Jacob was gone, and did not treat Jacob as though he held a grudge against him.

But generations later, when Moses led the nation of Israel, the children of Jacob, out of their captivity to Egypt, when they sought to pass through the land belonging to the generations of Esau, Edom refused them passage, threatening them with war if they tried to pass through. Moses replied that they would not pass through any field, or vineyard, nor draw from any well, but would only pass along the ‘king’s highway’ and carry on, but the king of Edom again refused, sending a large army out to assault them,and forcing them to take the long route around the land of Edom[7].

Their forefather having despised not only his earthly inheritance, but also the God of his fathers, and his offspring hating their kinsmen Israel, and despising the provision of YHWH for their benefit in giving them a land and defeating enemies before them [8], God affirmed through Balaam’s prophecy that Edom would be conquered, and Edom was conquered, and became a servant to Israel: [9]“Esau I have hated.”

God knew what sort of men they were before they were born, and God chose the the man who would ultimately be faithful, both to God and to God’s calling to serve Him. God knew how their descendants would receive Him, and also chose the nation that would at least begin to serve Him and continue to bear His name.

Paul’s entire letter addresses the choosing of a people based on parentage, which he has illustrated with the example of Israel having been chosen in their father Abraham because of his faith, and their father Isaac because of his father’s faith, and their father Jacob who would become a man of faith. Likewise God has chosen a people to Himself who are offspring of His Christ, and that one people is made up of those who are in Jacob plus those who are outside of Jacob: one people, not two; one Father, not several; one means for all no matter to which prior family they had belonged.

14  What shall we say then? No injustice (or unrighteousness) (is) with God. It may not be. (possibly ‘Is injustice not with God?’ The phrasing in Greek does not suggest a question, as the KJV presents the clause.)

τι ουν ερουμεν μη αδικια παρα τω θεω μη γενοιτο

Most English translations translate verse 14 as, ”What then shall we say? Is unrighteousness with God?” The Greek includes the word me – no – before adikia which is lacking in the English translations this author has checked, and adikia can be either “unrighteousness” or “injustice”, with the context generally indicating which is the correct understanding. Therefore literally translating the Greek as it written, we have: “What then we shall say no unrighteousness with God”. Paul may be asking a rhetorical question: Is God unrighteous for having loved Jacob while hating Esau; his reply being: It may not be, or it is impossible.

The verse may also be correctly read: “What then? We shall say (that) no unrighteousness is with God; it may not be!” or “We shall declare no unrighteousness with God; it may not be!” affirming that God could not have made an unrighteous decision or decree.

Whether we should read a rhetorical question which Paul answered with an emphatic negative, or we should understand him to have asserted the fact that it is impossible for God to have been unrighteous or unjust, the implication of his comment is the same. A perfect and holy God is both incapable of failing to be right and failing to exercise justice. God did not arbitrarily choose to strengthen and bless Jacob while equally arbitrarily choosing to reject and ‘hate’ Esau; both men were sinners and neither merited the favour of the LORD God. One cannot be right apart from also being just, and justice demanded the same recompense to both, both of whom began as self-willed, unfaithful sinners. Yet God foresaw the futures of both men and both tribes; He knew who would respond to Him in faith and by the time that He had declared His hatred for Esau, the nation that grew from Esau’s line had shown its colours as unfaithful and idolatrous, hating their kinsmen who grew from the brother of their forefather.

15  For to Moses He says, ‘I shall be merciful (indicative; future) to whom ever I may be merciful (present; subjunctive), and I shall pity (have compassion on) whom ever I may pity (have compassion.) (ref: Ex 33:19)

τω γαρ μωση λεγει ελεησω ον αν ελεω και οικτειρησω ον αν οικτειρω

Here Paul quotes from Exodus 33:19. The record of this chapter is of God speaking to Moses about Israel travelling to the land promised to Abraham.

The people had just been found worshipping the golden calf made by Aaron, and God declared His judgment upon them, calling them to execute even their own family members who had worshipped the calf, which the men of Levi did do. Moses then approached YHWH to offer atonement for the people, requesting God that if He would not forgive the people, that He ‘blot Moses’ name out of His book’. God replied that those who had sinned against Him would be blotted out, then instructed Moses to take them where they were supposed to go, telling him that He would send an angel with them, for He would not go with them because they were a stubborn people whom He would be liable to destroy on the way. The people were distressed to hear this, and Moses removed himself and the tabernacle outside of their camp, so that anyone who sought the LORD would have to go outside the camp to the tabernacle.

Moses communed with God, asking Him to show him who would go with him leading this people, and asking Him to show Moses God’s way in order that Moses could know Him. God’s reply was to agree that His “presence” would go with him, and God would give Moses rest. Moses implored YHWH that, if He would not go with them, He not send them from where they were, for no one would know they were a people set apart for YHWH if He did not go with them.

Moses’ response to God’s agreement to Moses’ request was to ask God to show him His glory. It is in His answer to that request that God made the statement quoted by Paul:  “I will make all my goodness pass before you, and will proclaim the name of YHWH before you, and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy.”

Somehow, Paul’s use of this quote has been twisted to suggest that God said He would be merciful to whomever He will, and He would be unmerciful to whomever He will, but this is most specifically not the case. The context of the declaration is one of a whole nation of people who committed a grievous offense against God Whom they had heard, Whose miracles they had witnessed, whose awesome power they had seen. God was right and just in His punishment of that people, yet He did not destroy them all; Levi stood for God against their own kinfolk and God honoured their faithfulness in granting them the temple service. Moses stood before the LORD on behalf of the nation as an whole, and God spared them for Moses’ sake, agreeing to remain with them on their journey despite their tremendous offense. God chose to have mercy – it could not be compelled, and He certainly didn’t owe it, but He would choose to be merciful and compassionate upon whomever He desired. In the historical situation of Moses, God chose to be merciful and compassionate to the Israelites on the basis of their contrition and submission to His rebuke, Levi’s execution of justice, and Moses’ intercession for them.

But Paul had been speaking of Jacob and Esau; God was willing to show mercy to Jacob and the offspring of Jacob, on the basis of faith. Abraham’s faith acquired nationhood for his descendants. Isaac and Jacob’s faith continued to bring blessing upon their offspring. Despite their failures, the children of Jacob, the nation of Israel, did continue their history in some form of recognition of the living God, and among them some remained faithful in each generation, while Esau’s offspring as a group continued idolatrous, pagan, and hateful toward those who were called “the people of God”. “Jacob” received the compassion of God as a ‘little people’ whom their neighbours mostly hated, and sought to destroy, for the faith of their fathers.

16  Consequently then it is not of the one willing, nor of the one running (lit: coursing), but of the God being merciful.

αρα ουν ου του θελοντος ουδε του τρεχοντος αλλα του ελεουντος θεου

Remembering that Paul has been speaking particularly to the Jews in his audience, and his statement about God’s demonstration of mercy upon whom He chooses was made to clarify the proposition that God had been unjust in loving Jacob but hating Esau,

Under the new covenant, God chooses to have mercy upon all who are in Christ Jesus, who trust in His death on the cross for their sins, and believe that God raised Him from the dead. No one can compel God to show mercy – by definition, mercy cannot be obligated, as it means the restraining of a justly-deserved negative consequence. If the consequence is deserved, there can be no compulsion; any mercy shown is entirely a gift of grace from the one exercising it.

Moreover, if a negative consequence is earned, no amount of striving can revoke the consequence. We cannot do enough good deeds to ‘make up for’ that act that earned the consequence; we can only satisfy justice by serving the sentence, or paying the fine, so to speak.

But mercy can also not be prohibited. God’s declaration was that He would show mercy and compassion upon whom He might do so. Mercy is not earned; it is granted, which means that it is not deserved. To exercise mercy means that there is something wrong outstanding toward the recipient of that mercy; something negative is due. Some could argue that God should not extend mercy to a rotten sinner – in fact we hear that kind of statement regarding certain criminal acts, that the person who is guilty deserves to be executed and does not deserve to live. Some unbelievers and some who believe but struggle with God’s mercy, are offended that God offers mercy to a murder, a rapist, an adulterer or other person guilty of some great evil. But God is free to offer mercy and compassion to whom He may choose, because He is God and has both the power and the authority to fulfill the righteous requirement of justice while enabling the guilty to be freed. Nothing anyone can do can require an exercise of mercy, and nothing anyone can say can condemn God for exercising it. All the power to show mercy remains with God alone. This fact, coupled with the reality that God has indeed chosen to extend mercy to the guilty sinner, demonstrates the exceptional benevolence of a God Who is not obligated to do any such thing, but does so out of love.

17  For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh that, ‘Into this same I aroused you (exegeira – out + roused; awakened), by what means (how) I should be showing in you My power and how My name should be published in all the earth.

λεγει γαρ η γραφη τω φαραω οτι εις αυτο τουτο εξηγειρα σε οπως ενδειξωμαι εν σοι την δυναμιν μου και οπως διαγγελη το ονομα μου εν παση τη γη

Verse 17 presents a conundrum to many readers, because many have been conditioned to read God’s statement as meaning that God created Pharaoh and made him king of Egypt in order to ‘show God’s power’ in overcoming Pharaoh whom He had supernaturally caused to rebel without regard to Pharaoh’s own inclinations, and this understanding lends itself to the arguing in favour of God creating billions of people for the express purpose of makng them rebellious so He can destroy them in judgment for their sin. An examination of both the vocabulary and the historical situation to which Paul referred reveals both of these assertions to be false.

The verb Paul used, which is translated in many English Bibles as “raised … up” is exegeiro, which literally means to “rouse out”. It can be translated “to arouse”, as to bring out of slumber, but is more strongly indicated as to stir up, incite, or excite. It is used only twice in the New Testament; the other instance is 1 Corinthians 6:14, in which Paul writes: “… and God both the Lord did raise, and us will raise up through His power.” Paul used exegeiro in the second clause when he said that God would ‘raise us up through His power’, but he used a different word, egeiro in his first clause: “God … raised up the Lord…” Egeiro is used in all instances that clearly refer to being awakened from physical sleep, of being resurrected from the dead, or of lifting or being lifted whether in a literal context or figurative (ie: “…the queen of the south shall rise up in judgment…”) or being risen to or from a position or situation. Exegeiro is never used in any of the 135 instances of these grammatical structures, and was not used in the verses in which the meaning of causing to happen or placing into a position (Luke 1:69; Acts 13:22) which is grounds to reject the preference to render the Greek in Romans 9:17 as God having “raised [Pharaoh] up” to his position, as being inconsistent with the rest of the New Testament.

Rendering the English consistently with the Greek gives us the understanding that God “aroused” Pharaoh, or incited him, and this is also consistent with the historical account in Genesis. Pharaoh King of Egypt was already opposed to the well-being of the nation of Israel, and antagonistic toward their God. YHWH confirmed to Moses that He would “harden Pharaoh’s heart” only after Pharaoh had lifted himself against the Jews to oppress and subjugate them for his gain, and in an effort to keep their numbers small. When Pharaoh defied the living God, disdaining His covenant nation as well as His own name, at that time, YHWH expressed judgment against Pharaoh. Pharaoh’s defiance was expressed in words and an exercise of power; God’s exegeiro – arousal or stirring up – of Pharaoh was executed in God’s exercise of His mighty ppower before Pharaoh and his idolatrous people.

This Pharaoh was the first of whom the Bible records that he disdained the children of Israel and the living God. Joseph’s kindred enjoyed honour and prosperity in Egypt for the sake of Joseph who had served prior pharaohs well and saved that nation from famine. But the book of Exodus reports that, Joseph and his generation having died, the children of Israel had prospered and ‘filled the land’ in Egypt. But beginning in verse 8, we read, “Now there rose up a new king over Egypt who did not know Joseph, and he said to his people, ‘Look; the people of the children of Israel are more and mightier than we. Come, let us deal wisely with them, lest they muiltiply and it come to pass that, when war comes upon us, they join with our enemies and fight against us, and so get them out of the land.” (possibly: “… it comes that they proclaim war, and he is added to those who hate us, and he fights in us and ascends from the land.”) This new king who did not know Joseph who had preserved his country from ruin, and felt threatened by this company who were both larger in number and stronger than the Egyptians themselves, determined to oppress Israel who had done them such benefit, and began to mistreat them dreadfully. Despite this mistreatment, Israel continued to grow, which angered Pharaoh and grieved the Egyptians, so the order was given to murder the baby boys born to the Jews. This order was ignored by the midwives, and the nation grew even larger, further angering Pharaoh, who now issued an edict that every son born to them was to be thrown into the river.

What we see from the beginning of Pharaoh’s reign is that he was single-mindedly hateful without cause toward this people of God, and was determined to oppress them to gain their labour while preventing their power. When his efforts were unsuccessful, he was angered and his attitude toward Israel worsened. Pharaoh’s heart was already hard against God’s peculiar people.

When God commissioned Moses to urge Pharaoh to permit Israel to depart to worship YHWH, He warned Moses that Pharaoh would vehemently refuse. Pharaoh’s answer to Moses’ request further demonstrated his rebellion against God: “Who is YHWH that I should obey His voice to let Israel go? I neither know YHWH nor will I let Israel go.” In effect, Pharaoh dismissed God as unworthy of consideration, and certainly not worthy of obedience. Pharaoh did not know YHWH, he did not believe YHWH to be the Creator and only God of the universe, and he had no respect for this God he did not believe. Pharaoh’s heart was already hard against God because of his unbelief. Not until after Pharaoh not only refused to release Israel to worship their God, but tremendously increased his abuse of them, did God declare that He would harden Pharaoh’s heart and show His wonders upon the people of Egypt in judgment, so that Egypt would know that God is YHWH, and will certainly let God’s people go.

Moreover, God did not say that He would supernaturally harden Pharaoh’s heart. When Moses and Aaron returned to Pharaoh, the latter demanded a sign; God had told Moses to have Aaron throw his rod down before Pharaoh, where it would turn into a snake. But Pharaoh’s magicians were able to duplicate this sign, leaving pharaoh unimpressed; his disdain for the living God was reinforced. When Aaron’s rod swallowed the rods of the magicians, Pharaoh’s heart was hardened, and he refused to let Israel go. (Exodus 7:12-13)

Moses’ second sign, the turning of the rivers and waters into blood, was likewise duplicated by Pharaoh’s magicians: “And the magicians of Egypt did so with their enchantments, and Pharaoh’s heart was hardened, neither did he listen to them, as YHWH had said.” (7:22) Likewise, when Moses and Aaron brought a plague of frogs, Pharaoh’s magicians copied with their magic, filling Egypt with frogs. Pharaoh asked Moses to entreat God to remove them, but when God caused all the frogs to die, so there were piles of rotting, stinking dead frogs throughout the land, and Pharaoh “saw there was respite, he hardened his heart and listened not to them as YHWH had said.” (8:15)

The pattern continued throughout the process: Pharaoh hardened his own heart after Moses asked the LORD to remove the plague of flies, when the Egyptian cattle died, but none of the Israelites cattle died, “ … the heart of Pharaoh was hardened…”. When boils plagued the Egyptians including Pharaoh’s magicians so that they could not stand before him, “… the LORD hardened the heart of Pharaoh…”  Hail destroyed most of what grew in the land, except in Goshen where Israel lived, and at first Pharaoh admitted his sin against God (9:27) But “… when Pharaoh saw that the rain and the hail and the thunders were ceased, he sinned yet more and hardened hisheart, he and his servants. And the heart of Pharaoh was hardened, neitherwould he let the children of Israel go…” (9:34-35) Again he repented when the locusts destroyed the rest of the land, until after God blew the locusts into the see, “but YHWH hardened Pharaoh’s heart, so that he would not let the children of Israel go.” Finally when deep darkness covered the entire land except for the land of Goshen,even then Pharaoh tried to barter with God for something less than God had required of him, and when Moses would not relent from his original position under Pharaoh’s attempts, “… YHWH hardened Pharaoh’s heart and he would not let them go.” (10:27) This time, Pharaoh threatened Moses that, if he saw Pharaoh’s face again, Moses would die. The final plague took the life of Pharaoh’s own son, and only then did Pharaoh submit to YWHW God and release the children of Israel as God had commanded.

Throughout the account, the writer states that the events of each plague hardened Pharaoh’s heart, or that Pharaoh hardened his own heart because of either the plague or God’s relenting in its application; the same description characterizes each time that God is said to have hardened Pharaoh’s heart. In each instance, the events themselves were the catalyst to the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart. There is no textual reason to ascribe the hardening to a supernatural exercise of the power of God directly on Pharaoh’s attitudes; rather the Scripture describes Pharaoh’s reactions to the process and outcomes of God’s plagues against him and his country: his disdain was reinforced when his magicians were able to copy the signs this supposed “God” performed; a God whose wonders were no higher than magic was not very impressive to this man. Each time, when the affliction occurred, or the magicians copied what Moses and Aaron appeared to have done, and later when God relieved the pressure by relieving the affliction, Pharaoh’s heart was further hardened against Him; neither respect, nor fear, nor submission would come from Pharaoh, but only rebellion, arrogance, and stubborn pride were his responses. God acted in a manner that reinforced the wickedness of the man whose heart and mind had already been set by his own choice against the LORD God almighty; in essence, God played to Pharaoh’s arrogance, and gave him a big plateful of what Pharaoh had already served for himself. In so doing, God ‘stirred Pharaoh up”, or aroused his anger, to show Pharaoh who had lifted himself in pride against the LORD God, and Pharaoh’s people, that YHWH is the true God, and all true power rests with Him; no Pharaoh could withstand himself against the LORD God, which is exactly what God declared He would do.

18  Consequently then whom he is willing he is being merciful to, yet whom he is he willing he is hardening.

αρα ουν ον θελει ελεει ον δε θελει σκληρυνει

To whom God is willing, God is merciful, yet God also hardens whom He is willing to harden. As Paul cited in verse 15, God may show mercy and compassion upon whomever He pleases; no obligation exists upon Him to refuse mercy. We must understand that God extends mercy to all men, in providing His witness of Himself in His creation[1] and through the convicting Holy Spirit[2], and by granting each sinner the time on this earth to respond to His self-witness and conviction with repentance and faith toward Him.[3] In the strictest sense, God would be completely within His right and justice to destroy each sinner as soon as each one becomes guilty. But as He repeatedly revealed in His word, God does not take delight in the death of the wicked, but that they turn from their wicked way and live.[4]

However, God remains both just and sovereign, to Whom all honour must be given, and toward whom our faith is required. If one has set their heart against God, so that they publicly ridicule and blaspheme Him, God may also choose to rise against that person to show that God is God, not some human adversary to be tweaked and twittered against by the feeble human. If, in showing Himself to be God before the eyes of this rebellious sinner, the sinner is hardened against God rather than brought to humble repentance, the fault lies entirely with the sinner for their rebellion and faithlessness; God has not wronged them, because He had no obligation toward them for beneficence once they rejected Him.

God aroused, stirred up, agitated, or provoked Pharaoh, who had already rebelled against and rejected God, to show Pharaoh that YHWH is God. Pharaoh was already in rebellion; God obliged him in presenting His signs as a challenge, beginning with “easy” things that the Egyptian magicians could copy, reinforcing Pharaoh’s arrogance and stubborn refusal to listen. When the signs began which his magicians could not copy, his people were agitated and complaining about what was happening, and urging Pharaoh to let Israel go. Harsher signs that would not be duplicated struck at Pharaoh’s pride – to give in now would be to admit he had been wrong, and destroy his position over his people, who regarded him as next to deity and possessing absolute sovereignty, at the same time as raising the nation of Israel as a people in the Egyptians’ regard, and elevating YHWH God in their eyes.

Pharaoh resisted; God increased the intensity and consequence of the events until Pharaoh was forced to surrender. God would be honoured either by Pharaoh’s honouring of God, as his predecessors had done, or God would be honoured through Pharaoh’s humiliation because God would show Himself to be God above Pharaoh’s power and self-aggrandizement.

[1] Romans 1:19-20; Psalm 19

[2] John 16:8

[3] Consider Revelation 2:21

[4] Ezekiel 33:11; 2 Peter 3:9; 1 Tim 2:4

19  Then you shall protest to me, why He still blames, for His counsel who has withstood?

ερεις ουν μοι τι ετι μεμφεται τω γαρ βουληματι αυτου τις ανθεστηκεν

As some interpret this verse, Paul is rebuking his readers for objecting to God hardening Pharaoh’s heart against his will, but this is both contrary to the truth and contrary to the nature of the God which lives. We have just seen that God hardened the heart of Pharaoh, not by supernaturally imposing upon an otherwise innocent and potentially faithful man, the rebellious unfaithfulness that would assure his destruction, but rather God responded to Pharaoh’s arrogant denial of the living God by revealing Himself through His exercise of unique power, to be the only true God Which Pharaoh could have acknowledged to his own salvation, if he would. But Pharaoh had drawn his ‘line in the sand’ when he retorted to Moses and Aaron, “Who is YHWH that I should obey his voice to let Israel go? I know not YHWH, neither will I let Israel go.”[1]

So how should we understand Paul’s statement here? In fact, he is rebuking the very accusation made through the asking of the question of why He should be angry when no one stands against His will or purpose. The implication of the question is that God is wrong to blame a hardened rebel because God has caused the hardening. But God is not ‘guilty as charged’; rather, as He knows the heart of each one, if God chooses to provoke a rebellious man in such a manner that that man becomes more solidly set in his rebellion, God has done nothing to harm that person; He has neither caused him to be rebellious, desired his rebellion, nor immutably or irresistibly imposed rebellion upon that person. Just as one who “searches with all his heart” is sure to find God[2], one who has set himself against the living God will find God standing against him, and God’s resistance of his rebellion will likely incite him to greater malice against the God Which is.

One could argue that God demonstrating His power as He did with Pharaoh serves as God doing “everything He could” to give Pharaoh a reason to repent of his rebellion and believe the living and true God. God did not leave this man with no witness of His existence or His nature, so that the man might have had an excuse to dismiss YWHW of the Jews as just another of the phony deities of that time and the peoples of that region. We must remember Pharaoh’s situation in time and culture to appreciate that every people followed their own gods, and Egypt, like others, claimed that their king was divine. Pharaoh knew well enough that he was nothing more than a man in a great role; he had no special power nor could he call upon any to serve a miraculous purpose. Knowing this, he could easily dismiss the deities of other peoples, particularly this people with no heritage that he could see, living as guests in his land, who’s God had apparently done nothing to prosper them.

[1] Exodus 5:2

[2] Jeremiah 29:13; Lk 11:10; Heb 11:6;

 

20  To be sure, oh person, you who are the one answering back to God? The moulded (one) shall not be protesting to the moulder, ‘Why did you make me thus?’

μενουνγε ω ανθρωπε συ τις ει ο ανταποκρινομενος τω θεω μη ερει το πλασμα τω πλασαντι τι με εποιησας ουτως

 Blaming someone else for one’s personal flaws or errors is a common tactic people use to try to escape their own guilt. When God says that someone is wrong, it’s easy for them to retort that they are the way God made them, so why is He condemning them for being so. Did not God, they argue, make Pharaoh to disbelieve Him, to be arrogant and powerful enough to push against Him? Did not God make men of flesh, subject to desires, needs, passions, which would compel their choices, making them vulnerable to sin, and vulnerable to the devil who seeks to tempt and beguile them? Did not God make each person exactly as God wanted that person to be, so that the person is only living out what God created them to do and be?

This sort of argument places the responsibility for what is wrong squarely on God’s shoulders; God is guilty of making us bad, so why would God condemn us for being as God has made us, and why then should we suffer negative consequences for being exactly what God designed?

God did not “make” Pharaoh a rebellious man, and God did not “make” men to sin. But if a man desires to rebel against God, God may use any means He sees fit to demonstrate to that man that God is God indeed, and if God’s means results in greater rebellion against and hatred toward God, God is by no means the problem. As Paul wrote at the beginning of his letter, they did not approve to retain knowledge of God, so God gave them over to an unapproved mind. In fact, each person receives exactly what they desire; if their desire is to go from God, God permits them to leave. (However, a loving God also calls them to return, if they will.)

 

21  or does the potter not have the jurisdiction of the clay, of the same kneading (phuramatos) to make the indeed into honour a vessel, the yet into dishonour?

η ουκ εχει εξουσιαν ο κεραμευς του πηλου εκ του αυτου φυραματος ποιησαι ο μεν εις τιμην σκευος ο δε εις ατιμιαν

Again, this verse is often read as though God works deliberately and purposefully with the human “clay” to create both persons destined for honour, and persons destined for dishonour; men destined for salvation, and men destined for hell. This is wrong for several reasons.

First of all, Paul was using an historical illustration of Pharaoh and his dealings with Israel and with God; he was not speaking of God creating individuals destined for heaven and others destined for hell.

Secondly, the illustration is being used in Paul’s discussion of the nation of Israel, and God’s choice of a people over a people – which he is using to exemplify God’s choice of the children of Christ as God’s church. He has just finished writing that God will show mercy and compassion upon whomever He desires – which in the context of salvation is everyone who believes on Christ – and that He will harden whom He wills, referring to the already-hardened Pharaoh, who was further hardened against God by his reactions to God’s demonstration of power and authority in Pharaoh’s kingdom.

God has no obligation to ensure that a rebellious man will see, recognize, and receive God’s demonstration of His presence and power. God created all men from the same ‘kneading’ – we are one humanity, from a single, divinely-initiated source, our fore-father Adam. Yet among us are those who are noble, and those ignoble. The  noble are destined to honour, while the ignoble are destined to destruction. God will reward the faithful with eternity, and reward the unfaithful with hell. This is His right, because He is the Creator, He is the sovereign Lord, and He has the jurisdiction to set the parameters of honour and dishonour, life and death, approval and rejection. And indeed He has. [11]

 

22  If yet willing the God is, willing to display the indignation, and to make known His power, carried in much patience vessels of indignation having been adapted into destruction,

ει δε θελων ο θεος ενδειξασθαι την οργην και γνωρισαι το δυνατον αυτου ηνεγκεν εν πολλη μακροθυμια σκευη οργης κατηρτισμενα εις απωλειαν

 

23  and that He would make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He before makes ready into glory,

και ινα γνωριση τον πλουτον της δοξης αυτου επι σκευη ελεους α προητοιμασεν εις δοξαν

 

24  whom and (He) called, us not only out of Jews (not only us of Jews), but also out of Gentiles

ους και εκαλεσεν ημας ου μονον εξ ιουδαιων αλλα και εξ εθνων

God called ‘us’, the church, out of both Jews and Gentiles. Whereas some place the emphasis of Paul’s statement here on the word “us”, to say that God called each one of ‘us’ as individuals, Paul’s whole treatise pertains to the calling of a people – Israel by human parentage, but the church by divine parentage, and Paul affirms to his audience that the church was called not only out of the Jews as having been a special people to God through human parentage, nor the Gentiles as being the people group not part of those originally called who rejected the Divine Caller, but from both people groups into one people to God in Christ. This two-people-into-one-people is developed a little more pointedly in his letter to the Ephesians[10], in which he clearly teaches the Ephesians that both Jews and Gentiles are united in one body through Christ – one church, one body, one means, one end.

Thus, Paul’s affirmation here that the church as a body was called out of both peoples, as opposed to god having isolated one people group or the other to or from salvation in Christ, or that there was more than one body in Christ, divided based on national or ethnic heritage, or the old covenant of the Law, which has been his presentation throughout his letter to the Roman saints.

25  As also in Hosea He says, ‘I shall call the not My people my people, My people; and the not beloved, beloved.

ως και εν τω ωσηε λεγει καλεσω τον ου λαον μου λαον μου και την ουκ ηγαπημενην ηγαπημενην

 

26  And it shall be in the place where it was declared to them, ‘You (are) not My people’, there they shall be called sons of living God.

και εσται εν τω τοπω ου ερρηθη αυτοις ου λαος μου υμεις εκει κληθησονται υιοι θεου ζωντος

 

27  Yet Isaiah cries over the Israel, ‘If the number of the sons of Israel may be as the sand of the sea, the remnant shall be saved:

ησαιας δε κραζει υπερ του ισραηλ εαν η ο αριθμος των υιων ισραηλ ως η αμμος της θαλασσης το καταλειμμα σωθησεται

 

28  for ending-together a matter (logon: saying, matter) and cutting-together in righteousness, that (a) saying (logon) having been cut (short) shall Lord do on the earth.

λογον γαρ συντελων και συντεμνων εν δικαιοσυνη οτι λογον συντετμημενον ποιησει κυριος επι της γης

 

29  And as Esaias said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha.

και καθως προειρηκεν ησαιας ει μη κυριος σαβαωθ εγκατελιπεν ημιν σπερμα ως σοδομα αν εγενηθημεν και ως γομορρα αν ωμοιωθημεν

 

30  What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, overtook righteousness, yet the righteousness out of faith.

τι ουν ερουμεν οτι εθνη τα μη διωκοντα δικαιοσυνην κατελαβεν δικαιοσυνην δικαιοσυνην δε την εκ πιστεως

 

31  Yet Israel, pursuing law of righteousness, into law of righteousness (is) not arrived.

ισραηλ δε διωκων νομον δικαιοσυνης εις νομον δικαιοσυνης ουκ εφθασεν

 

32  Through what? That not out of faith, but as out of works of law. For they stumbled at the stone of the stumbling

OR  “Through what? That not out of faith, but as out of works of law they stumbled for to (or “at”) the stone of the stumbling.

διατι οτι ουκ εκ πιστεως αλλ ως εξ εργων νομου προσεκοψαν γαρ τω λιθω του προσκομματος

 

Chapter 9: important: chosen in Abraham, Isaac & Jacob yet rejected on the basis of appointment by lineage (v32) BECAUSE there was no faith! God called, chose, appointed an entire people, but not all members of that people received (active sense) the blessings BECAUSE they did not seek God’s face by faith, but His favour through the observance of the Law.

God called, many refused him. God still calls; many still refuse him.

33  according as it has been written, ‘Behold, I lay in Sion (a) stone of stumbling and rock of entrapment (skandalon: snare) and every believer on Him shall not be ashamed.’

καθως γεγραπται ιδου τιθημι εν σιων λιθον προσκομματος και πετραν σκανδαλου και πας ο πιστευων επ αυτω ου καταισχυνθησεται

Ref: Isaiah 28:16 + 8:14; 1 Peter 2:6,8;