Mark

Kay,

Let me say first of all thankyou for actually addressing a text. But let me say I am unconvinced of your exegesis. After all if Paul here is talking ONLY about the nation of Israel being elect why does Paul expect backlash and ask those rhetoric questions. Why would what he says be offensive? The Jews know they are his elect nation.

However, I disagree that Calvinists begin in verse 15. That is totally wrong. Let’s go back over it.
At the end of chapter 8, this famous passage confirms something for the Roman believers “nothing can separate us from God”. If this be true (which I believe it is), then what has happened to the Jews? Has God seperated himself from the elect nation?

Paul’s answer is no! He outlines all the blessings given to Israel (9:1-5). He says he wishes he could be cut off for their sakes. They had the patriarchs, covenants, promises… so how is it that these are the very people who have rejected Christ? The answer comes, to show how it is that God’s word has not failed.

“For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel”

Now let me ask what does this mean to you? From the context it is clear that although the nation of Israel had all the things outlined in verse 1-5, that does not mean they received individual salvation. Only ‘true’ Israel receives salvation. This is the crux verse for the interpretation of Romans 9. If Paul is only interested in ‘nations’ it makes no sense of this verse. Paul is interested in showing how God’s word has not failed PRECISELY because not all of national Israel are true Israel (individual salvation). This themes is constantly expanded throughout the next 2 chapters aswell, when Paul is discussing the ‘remnant’- that is, those within the nation ho were actually saved into eternal life.

Paul then uses 2 Old Testament example to prove his point. First, Abraham! Issac was chosen not Ishmael purely on God’s mercy. But of course the objection could be raised about these 2 children of Abraham having different mothers. So Paul uses example 2- Isaac’s children. Both of Isaac’s children have the same mother and indeed both are conceived at the same time, yet God in his sovereign mercy, chose Jacob and not Esau. Paul then quotes various Old Testament references showing his point from the scriptures- the older will serve the younger, Jacob I loved, Esau I hated.

Now it is clear that this would upset people. If this is true about God’s pure sovereign choice of one over another, then how is that fair? In fact, how can we be judged if we are just fulfilling God’s predetermined plan for our lives (sounds familiar does it not?). Paul answers those objection in verses 14-21. God has mercy on who he wills. He hardens whom he wills. Election does not depend on HUMAN WILL or effort, but on the contrary, God’s mercy. It makes no sense to go with your interpretation and understand either verse 6 or verses 14-21. If Paul’s intention was purely ‘national’ verse 6 lies, and there would have been no objections to his teaching. After all the Jews already knew they were God’s chosen nation.

Romans 9:27 deals with the remnant
Romans 9:6 deals with the remnant
Romans 11:5 deals with the remnant
Frankly, nothing in these chapters gives the indication that Paul means nations, unless of course you want to say that the remnant is a nation!

In chapter 11 Paul again asks the question whether God’s word has failed. On the contrary he quotes again from the Old Testament when God had a remnant of ‘faithful individuals’ when the nation was in apostasy during Elijah’s time. He further expands that what Israel sought to obtain it failed because salvation is by faith not works which is what the ‘elect’ recieved. He also further enhances from the scriptures again how God has hardened to Jews in the present age to bring in the gentiles.

Again let me say that exegetically (and I only brushed through it all) the only possible way to read these chapters is what I have outlined. God has elected individuals purely on his mercy from both the Jews and gentiles. If this seems unfair to some, they need to come to terms that God is God. He is the potter, we are the clay.

To read it purely nationally does not do justice to the text exegetically. Not only that, but how is it still not unfair that God chooses a nation over other nations. It seems hypocritical that you can say God can choose a nation but not individuals.

Finally I totally disagree that the passage is showing how the nation of Israel brought forth the messiah. That is a massive interpolation into the text. Nothing in Romans 9-11 is dealing with how Jesus descended from Abraham. You have totally changed what the text is dealing with. Paul no where deals with ‘messiah’, ‘Jesus’, lineage or any other such notions. This is precisely the problem with rejecting the reformed view- it has to ignore the grammer, the intention of the passage, and include things that are not there.

But again let me say, that at least you tried to deal with a text. Perhaps now you can attempt to show me where our faith is foreknown by God, therefore that is why we are predestined unto salvation.