Paul now returns to a topic touched on earlier (esp in Rom 2-4); "What about Israel?"
Since Paul has argued that salvation is not tied to Israel, he now wants to clarify their status.
Emphatically, Paul wants to establish that Israel's failure to embrace Christ
as a whole does not mean that God has failed.
In short, the question asked is, "Is God's turning to the Gentiles an admission of failure with Israel?"
Additionally, Paul enters the topic of Israel's status (in light of their general rejection of Christ) having just finished explaining
about how the believer is united with Christ through the Spirit and God's love; discussing why Israel is not united to God through
the Spirit is a natural extension.
This is also perhaps the most controversial section on the subject of Calvinism in
the Bible (Calvinism is the belief system that emphasizes God as the mover behind human choices [providence]. It's opposite, Arminianism, is
the belief system that emphasizes individual freedom behind human choices [free will]).
1. Rom 9:1 - 9:33: Israel - Rejected by God's choice (note: hotly debated)
Paul asserts that God didn't fail because the outcome was his choice; God never included all of Abraham's
descendents in the plan. Further, God picked some humans and not others - those he picks are the ones included, and that's
included Gentiles only certain Jews from the start (this statement about choice is highly debated).
1. Paul speaks out of deep love for the Jews, his kinsmen (9:1-5)
the paul challenge: would you go to hell for anyone else? (v1.-3)
this was a topic of conversation in my college days.
unfortunately, i have to say that i wouldn't.
some people argue that paul wouldn't either, since he says that "i could wish". who knows.
Notice how he reexpresses "the advantage of the jew) (originally in 2:1, here in 9:4,5)
to whom belongs the adioption as sons and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the law
and the temple service and the promises, whose are the fathers, and from who is the christ according
to the flesh
2. God choose some of Israel but not all of it (9:6-13)
"they are not all israel who are descended from Israel" (v6b)
first stated back in chapter 2, v29 saying:
but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit,
not by the letter
example: esau vs jacob (v8-13)
from the beginning, not all of abrahams children were saved.
in fact, god picked jacob and not esau before they were born.
works had nothing to do with that choice then; purely the call of god (v11)
3. God is not unjust to choose one and not another; rather, God defines justice (9:14-22)
God can show mercy on whom he likes (v14-16)
God can harden whom he likes as well (v17 - 18)
q&a:
Harden? How does God judge then? (v19)
"who are you o man"... Does not God have the right to do what he wills (God defines justice)? (v20-22)
"vessels of wrath prepared for destruction" Infra vs Supra
two strains of calvinism...
the question comes down to...is vessels of wrath created before hand hypothetical or not.
infralapsarianism: man created, man sinned, god choose to save some.
supralapsarianism: god choose to save some, man created, man sinned.
i think paul is asserting supralapsarian views. no major denomonation teaches this.
does it make god unkind/unjust? i think that's what paul is arguing against (unjust? god prescribes
justice to us; he is not under any laws himself).
further, it's hard to believe that god is unkind in light of the cross.
the arminian (free will) views this section as corporate or as wholly hypothetical (not arguing that god
necessarily did these things, but that his righteousness is unassailable.)
4. God planned from the beginning to include Gentiles (9:23-33)
God's plan, from the start, was to include jews and gentiles (he prepared beforehand)
proven from hosea, isaiah, isaiah, and isaiah.
Bottom line: "everything is going according to plan..."
Paul, having argued that Israel's rejection is by God's choice (according to the way I read it), now
balances this statement by arguing that Israel's rejection is by Israel's choice (Israel is disobedient and obstinate).
1. Israel has been pursuing righteousness through the law, not through faith (knowledge is crucial!) (10:1-15)
v1-4 - they pursued their own rightousness not gods
"not knowing about God's rightousness, and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject
themselves to the righteousness of God" (v3)
v5-10 reads confusingly... read deut 30:11-14
11. "For this commandment which I command you today is not too difficult for you, nor is it out of reach.
12. "It is not in heaven, that you should say, `Who will go up to heaven for us to get it for us
and make us hear it, that we may observe it?'
13. "Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, `Who will cross the sea for us to get it
for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?'
14. "But the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may observe it.
v11-15 - salvation is to all...who hear...if someone speaks
tidy argument for evangelism...
2. Israel heard and rejected the news of salvation.
"they did not all heed the glad titdings"
Paul, arguing that salvation has always been through "righteousness by faith",
brings up Israel's consistent disobedience.
basically, he says they had the means of salvation and they rejected it.
in content, this is very similar to stephens speech in acts 7.
Bottom line: "breaking up was sort of a mutual thing"
Paul, having blamed Israel's rejection on Israel's disobedience and God's choice (?), now reveals that their
rejection isn't complete. Israel's rejection doesn't mean that Jews can't be saved, nor does it mean that
Israel is rejected forever. In the future, Israel will once again be restored to God (though many
disagree with this assertion).
1. Israel is not fully rejected; many Jews have accepted Christ, including Paul (11:1-10)
v1 - 5 especially.
can we lose our salvation? (v20,22)
general orthodoxy says no.
some scripture gives pretty severe warnings though.
most people argue that you must fight to maintain; take the admonition seriously.
and don't worry.
if you ask me, maybe you can (lots argues against though). but fight to stay.
2. Israel's rejection does not mean we should be conceited, but that we should fear (11:11-24)
11:11 - 16 - their rejection has opened salvation to the Gentiles
11:17-24 - we should continue in fear not arrogance, so that we are not cut off like israel was.
3. Israel is rejected temporarily and will be restored (11:25-36)
"a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fulness of the Gentiles has come in; and thus all Israel will be saved." (v25,26)
huh? options:
- israel has only been rejected for a while...
- israel is israel in the first part of that sentence and "god's people" in the second.
premillenial vs amillenial
premil:
christ will return and reign from jerusalem for 1000 years; national israel will return to God.
amil:
christ will return, but the 1000 year reign is a metaphor for the reign of christ over the church/world.
genetic israel has been replaced by the church (now israel, as in 1 Pet 2:9,10)