Romans 9 Is Not About Predestination!

[Clete]

When deciding to write this post, there were a lot of directions from which I could come at this chapter. What I decided would be best for an opening post is for me to simply posit what I see as how the chapter should be taken in general without going into anything like a detailed, verse by verse exposition. We can get into as much detail as might be desired later in the discussion. For now, a big picture overview of the chapter seems to be in order.

Before I do that though let me say first that I think that the Bible interprets itself and must be taken as a whole but that I also believe that individual passages of Scripture must stand on their own without being logically incoherent. In other words, we are able to determine what a passage of Scripture is saying based solely on the context of the passage itself. We do not need a theological system in place before it is possible to figure out what a section of Scripture is saying. Now, there could be, I suppose, exceptions to this general rule but Romans chapter 9 is certainly not one of them. I'm saying this at the outset because I want to draw attention to the fact that I do not draw upon any theology to interpret this chapter but only upon the text of the chapter itself as well as other Bible passages which the text of Romans 9 makes reference too, all of which couldn't be any clearer and easy to understand than they are. I also bring this up now because I think that this will become important as the conversation goes on because I do not think that the Calvinist take on this chapter makes any logical sense whatsoever and couldn't possibly be arrived at unless they are bringing their theology with them to the reading of the passage. Indeed, Paul would have to be nearly schizophrenic to write what Calvinists generally say that he wrote in this passage.

Now, with that in mind let's get to it...

In a single sentence - The ninth chapter of Romans is speaking about the cutting off of Israel.
It is quite clear that Paul is making a case that God cut off Israel and turned instead to the gentiles, and that God is justified in having done so. It will become equally clear that this is all that the chapter is about, and that it has nothing to do with predestination at all.

It helps to see it if one looks at the introduction and summation of the chapter. In the first few verses it is clear that Paul is speaking of Israel and that he is upset by their condition of unbelief...

Romans 9:1 I tell the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit, 2 that I have great sorrow and continual grief in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my *countrymen according to the flesh, 4 who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; 5 of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen.​

And then in the last few verses Paul sums up the point of what he's just been saying in the previous several verses...

Romans 9:30 What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness of faith; 31 but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law *of righteousness. 32 Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, *by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone. 33 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."​

Now, that by itself is probably enough to make it clear what Paul is talking about but what really nails it down is his reference in the body of the chapter to a couple of Old Testament passages, those being Jacob and Esau and then the Potter and the clay story.
It's always a good idea to read any Old Testament passage that is quoted or made reference to in the New, in order to maintain the context of what's being said. (Remember the whole "Bible interpreting the Bible" thing.) So let's take a look at them so that we can be on the same page that Paul was on when he made these references. Doing so will undoubtedly shed additional light on the point he was making.

Romans 9:13 As it is written, "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated."​

This is a direct quote from Malachi 1:2-3 but even the Malachi passage is not referencing the two boys themselves but the nations which came from them. I won't bother quoting it here but even a surface reading of Malachi 1 will confirm that it is talking about a nation not a person.
Likewise, Paul is talking also about a nation. We can tell this for certain because of what is quoted just before in verse 12...

Romans 9:12 "it was said to her, "The older shall serve the younger.""​

This is a direct quote from Genesis chapter 25 where it says explicitly that there are two nations in Rebecca's womb...

Genesis 25:23 "And the LORD said to her: "Two nations are in your womb, Two peoples shall be separated from your body; One people shall be stronger than the other, And the older shall serve the younger."​

Additionally, even if it didn't explicitly state that it's talking about two nations we could still know for certain that it is anyway because Esau (the older) never served Jacob (the younger). That did not happen, ever.

This passage is very clearly talking about nations and about how God deals with nations not about individuals or how God deals with individuals and Paul by referencing this material was making the exact same point. That's the reason why he referenced it.

Now let's move on to the Potter and the clay story. It is on the same topic and is found in Jeremiah chapter 18...

Jeremiah 18:1The word which came to Jeremiah from the LORD, saying: 2 "Arise and go down to the potter's house, and there I will cause you to hear My words." 3 Then I went down to the potter's house, and there he was, making something at the wheel. 4 And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter; so he made it again into another vessel, as it seemed good to the potter to make.
5 Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying: 6 "O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter?" says the LORD. "Look, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are you in My hand, O house of Israel! 7 The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it, 8 if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it. 9 And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it, 10 if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will relent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it.​

Okay, that couldn't be any clearer! Jeremiah was making the very point that Paul is making! No wonder Paul referenced this passage, it applies directly to the subject he was dealing with! It IS the subject he was dealing with! Romans 9 and Jeremiah 18 are making the exact same point; they both use the same analogy for the same reasons. For all intent and purposes Romans 9 and Jeremiah 18 are the exact same chapter! The only difference is that in Romans 9 Paul is saying that the principle described in Jeremiah 18 has been carried out by God on the nation of Israel.

Romans 9 is not about predestination at all. Paul didn't start talking about Israel and then suddenly change the subject to predestination and then just as suddenly change the subject back again to Israel. The whole chapter is on one issue and one issue only. That issue being God's absolute right to change His mind concerning His blessing of a nation that had done evil in His sight.

It's no more complicated than that. In a nutshell, Paul was simply saying that Israel's promised kingdom wasn't coming because they had rejected the King and Romans 9 is all about how God was justified in having changed His mind about giving them that kingdom. That's all it's about; nothing more, nothing less.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[CharismaticLady]

When deciding to write this post, there were a lot of directions from which I could come at this chapter. What I decided would be best for an opening post is for me to simply posit what I see as how the chapter should be taken in general without going into anything like a detailed, verse by verse exposition. We can get into as much detail as might be desired later in the discussion. For now, a big picture overview of the chapter seems to be in order.

Before I do that though let me say first that I think that the Bible interprets itself and must be taken as a whole but that I also believe that individual passages of Scripture must stand on their own without being logically incoherent. In other words, we are able to determine what a passage of Scripture is saying based solely on the context of the passage itself. We do not need a theological system in place before it is possible to figure out what a section of Scripture is saying. Now, there could be, I suppose, exceptions to this general rule but Romans chapter 9 is certainly not one of them. I'm saying this at the outset because I want to draw attention to the fact that I do not draw upon any theology to interpret this chapter but only upon the text of the chapter itself as well as other Bible passages which the text of Romans 9 makes reference too, all of which couldn't be any clearer and easy to understand than they are. I also bring this up now because I think that this will become important as the conversation goes on because I do not think that the Calvinist take on this chapter makes any logical sense whatsoever and couldn't possibly be arrived at unless they are bringing their theology with them to the reading of the passage. Indeed, Paul would have to be nearly schizophrenic to write what Calvinists generally say that he wrote in this passage.

Now, with that in mind let's get to it...

In a single sentence - The ninth chapter of Romans is speaking about the cutting off of Israel.
It is quite clear that Paul is making a case that God cut off Israel and turned instead to the gentiles, and that God is justified in having done so. It will become equally clear that this is all that the chapter is about, and that it has nothing to do with predestination at all.

It helps to see it if one looks at the introduction and summation of the chapter. In the first few verses it is clear that Paul is speaking of Israel and that he is upset by their condition of unbelief...

Romans 9:1 I tell the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit, 2 that I have great sorrow and continual grief in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my *countrymen according to the flesh, 4 who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; 5 of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen.​

And then in the last few verses Paul sums up the point of what he's just been saying in the previous several verses...

Romans 9:30 What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness of faith; 31 but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law *of righteousness. 32 Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, *by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone. 33 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."​

Now, that by itself is probably enough to make it clear what Paul is talking about but what really nails it down is his reference in the body of the chapter to a couple of Old Testament passages, those being Jacob and Esau and then the Potter and the clay story.
It's always a good idea to read any Old Testament passage that is quoted or made reference to in the New, in order to maintain the context of what's being said. (Remember the whole "Bible interpreting the Bible" thing.) So let's take a look at them so that we can be on the same page that Paul was on when he made these references. Doing so will undoubtedly shed additional light on the point he was making.

Romans 9:13 As it is written, "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated."​

This is a direct quote from Malachi 1:2-3 but even the Malachi passage is not referencing the two boys themselves but the nations which came from them. I won't bother quoting it here but even a surface reading of Malachi 1 will confirm that it is talking about a nation not a person.
Likewise, Paul is talking also about a nation. We can tell this for certain because of what is quoted just before in verse 12...

Romans 9:12 "it was said to her, "The older shall serve the younger.""​

This is a direct quote from Genesis chapter 25 where it says explicitly that there are two nations in Rebecca's womb...

Genesis 25:23 "And the LORD said to her: "Two nations are in your womb, Two peoples shall be separated from your body; One people shall be stronger than the other, And the older shall serve the younger."​

Additionally, even if it didn't explicitly state that it's talking about two nations we could still know for certain that it is anyway because Esau (the older) never served Jacob (the younger). That did not happen, ever.

This passage is very clearly talking about nations and about how God deals with nations not about individuals or how God deals with individuals and Paul by referencing this material was making the exact same point. That's the reason why he referenced it.

Now let's move on to the Potter and the clay story. It is on the same topic and is found in Jeremiah chapter 18...

Jeremiah 18:1The word which came to Jeremiah from the LORD, saying: 2 "Arise and go down to the potter's house, and there I will cause you to hear My words." 3 Then I went down to the potter's house, and there he was, making something at the wheel. 4 And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter; so he made it again into another vessel, as it seemed good to the potter to make.
5 Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying: 6 "O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter?" says the LORD. "Look, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are you in My hand, O house of Israel! 7 The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it, 8 if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it. 9 And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it, 10 if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will relent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it.​

Okay, that couldn't be any clearer! Jeremiah was making the very point that Paul is making! No wonder Paul referenced this passage, it applies directly to the subject he was dealing with! It IS the subject he was dealing with! Romans 9 and Jeremiah 18 are making the exact same point; they both use the same analogy for the same reasons. For all intent and purposes Romans 9 and Jeremiah 18 are the exact same chapter! The only difference is that in Romans 9 Paul is saying that the principle described in Jeremiah 18 has been carried out by God on the nation of Israel.

Romans 9 is not about predestination at all. Paul didn't start talking about Israel and then suddenly change the subject to predestination and then just as suddenly change the subject back again to Israel. The whole chapter is on one issue and one issue only. That issue being God's absolute right to change His mind concerning His blessing of a nation that had done evil in His sight.

It's no more complicated than that. In a nutshell, Paul was simply saying that Israel's promised kingdom wasn't coming because they had rejected the King and Romans 9 is all about how God was justified in having changed His mind about giving them that kingdom. That's all it's about; nothing more, nothing less.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Ephesians 1 is the same thing. Paul was showing the authority of the Jewish apostles. Only the apostles were predestined before the foundation of the world.

3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, 4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, 5 having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, 6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He made us accepted in the Beloved.

7 In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace 8 which He made to abound toward us in all wisdom and prudence, 9 having made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself, 10 that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth—in Him. 11 In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will, 12 that we who first trusted in Christ should be to the praise of His glory.

13 In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.

Another issue is who are the 'elect.' Note, being His elect doesn't mean they will all be saved in the end.

Isaiah 45:3-5
I will give you the treasures of darkness
And hidden riches of secret places,
That you may know that I, the Lord,
Who call you by your name,
Am the God of Israel.
4 For Jacob My servant’s sake,
And Israel My elect,
I have even called you by your name;
I have named you, though you have not known Me.
5 I am the Lord, and there is no other;
There is no God besides Me.
I will gird you, though you have not known Me,

 

[dqhall]

When deciding to write this post, there were a lot of directions from which I could come at this chapter. What I decided would be best for an opening post is for me to simply posit what I see as how the chapter should be taken in general without going into anything like a detailed, verse by verse exposition. We can get into as much detail as might be desired later in the discussion. For now, a big picture overview of the chapter seems to be in order.

Before I do that though let me say first that I think that the Bible interprets itself and must be taken as a whole but that I also believe that individual passages of Scripture must stand on their own without being logically incoherent. In other words, we are able to determine what a passage of Scripture is saying based solely on the context of the passage itself. We do not need a theological system in place before it is possible to figure out what a section of Scripture is saying. Now, there could be, I suppose, exceptions to this general rule but Romans chapter 9 is certainly not one of them. I'm saying this at the outset because I want to draw attention to the fact that I do not draw upon any theology to interpret this chapter but only upon the text of the chapter itself as well as other Bible passages which the text of Romans 9 makes reference too, all of which couldn't be any clearer and easy to understand than they are. I also bring this up now because I think that this will become important as the conversation goes on because I do not think that the Calvinist take on this chapter makes any logical sense whatsoever and couldn't possibly be arrived at unless they are bringing their theology with them to the reading of the passage. Indeed, Paul would have to be nearly schizophrenic to write what Calvinists generally say that he wrote in this passage.

Now, with that in mind let's get to it...

In a single sentence - The ninth chapter of Romans is speaking about the cutting off of Israel.
It is quite clear that Paul is making a case that God cut off Israel and turned instead to the gentiles, and that God is justified in having done so. It will become equally clear that this is all that the chapter is about, and that it has nothing to do with predestination at all.

It helps to see it if one looks at the introduction and summation of the chapter. In the first few verses it is clear that Paul is speaking of Israel and that he is upset by their condition of unbelief...

Romans 9:1 I tell the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit, 2 that I have great sorrow and continual grief in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my *countrymen according to the flesh, 4 who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; 5 of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen.​

And then in the last few verses Paul sums up the point of what he's just been saying in the previous several verses...

Romans 9:30 What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness of faith; 31 but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law *of righteousness. 32 Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, *by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone. 33 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."​

Now, that by itself is probably enough to make it clear what Paul is talking about but what really nails it down is his reference in the body of the chapter to a couple of Old Testament passages, those being Jacob and Esau and then the Potter and the clay story.
It's always a good idea to read any Old Testament passage that is quoted or made reference to in the New, in order to maintain the context of what's being said. (Remember the whole "Bible interpreting the Bible" thing.) So let's take a look at them so that we can be on the same page that Paul was on when he made these references. Doing so will undoubtedly shed additional light on the point he was making.

Romans 9:13 As it is written, "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated."​

This is a direct quote from Malachi 1:2-3 but even the Malachi passage is not referencing the two boys themselves but the nations which came from them. I won't bother quoting it here but even a surface reading of Malachi 1 will confirm that it is talking about a nation not a person.
Likewise, Paul is talking also about a nation. We can tell this for certain because of what is quoted just before in verse 12...

Romans 9:12 "it was said to her, "The older shall serve the younger.""​

This is a direct quote from Genesis chapter 25 where it says explicitly that there are two nations in Rebecca's womb...

Genesis 25:23 "And the LORD said to her: "Two nations are in your womb, Two peoples shall be separated from your body; One people shall be stronger than the other, And the older shall serve the younger."​

Additionally, even if it didn't explicitly state that it's talking about two nations we could still know for certain that it is anyway because Esau (the older) never served Jacob (the younger). That did not happen, ever.

This passage is very clearly talking about nations and about how God deals with nations not about individuals or how God deals with individuals and Paul by referencing this material was making the exact same point. That's the reason why he referenced it.

Now let's move on to the Potter and the clay story. It is on the same topic and is found in Jeremiah chapter 18...

Jeremiah 18:1The word which came to Jeremiah from the LORD, saying: 2 "Arise and go down to the potter's house, and there I will cause you to hear My words." 3 Then I went down to the potter's house, and there he was, making something at the wheel. 4 And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter; so he made it again into another vessel, as it seemed good to the potter to make.
5 Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying: 6 "O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter?" says the LORD. "Look, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are you in My hand, O house of Israel! 7 The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it, 8 if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it. 9 And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it, 10 if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will relent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it.​

Okay, that couldn't be any clearer! Jeremiah was making the very point that Paul is making! No wonder Paul referenced this passage, it applies directly to the subject he was dealing with! It IS the subject he was dealing with! Romans 9 and Jeremiah 18 are making the exact same point; they both use the same analogy for the same reasons. For all intent and purposes Romans 9 and Jeremiah 18 are the exact same chapter! The only difference is that in Romans 9 Paul is saying that the principle described in Jeremiah 18 has been carried out by God on the nation of Israel.

Romans 9 is not about predestination at all. Paul didn't start talking about Israel and then suddenly change the subject to predestination and then just as suddenly change the subject back again to Israel. The whole chapter is on one issue and one issue only. That issue being God's absolute right to change His mind concerning His blessing of a nation that had done evil in His sight.

It's no more complicated than that. In a nutshell, Paul was simply saying that Israel's promised kingdom wasn't coming because they had rejected the King and Romans 9 is all about how God was justified in having changed His mind about giving them that kingdom. That's all it's about; nothing more, nothing less.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Remember Jesus and eleven of the disciples were Jewish. Paul was Jewish as were some of his coworkers. Paul had to circumcise Timothy as he was yet working among Jews and teaching in synagogues. While part of Israel may have been cut off, another part was receiving salvation. Paul had attracted some Gentiles who were not prejudiced against him on account of his Jewishness. He spoke their language. The New Testament was recorded in Greek. A few Aramaic words are preserved in the text of the Gospels. This is because salvation was at work among the Jews.

 

[Clete]

Ephesians 1 is the same thing. Paul was showing the authority of the Jewish apostles. Only the apostles were predestined before the foundation of the world.

3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, 4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, 5 having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, 6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He made us accepted in the Beloved.

7 In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace 8 which He made to abound toward us in all wisdom and prudence, 9 having made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself, 10 that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth—in Him. 11 In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will, 12 that we who first trusted in Christ should be to the praise of His glory.

13 In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.

I do not agree that THE Twelve Apostles were predestined. The fact that there would be twelve apostles may well have been but which individuals would fill those roles certainly was not.
The key phrase in all such passages is "in Him". It is groups of people that God predetermines the destiny of, not individuals. A descent analogy is that of a commercial air plane.

The owners of a particular airline flight determine in advance where a plane will be, when it will leave and what it's destination is. Those who are "in the plane" are, in effect, predestined to arrive at the preordained destination. Similarly, God has determined in advance that those who are identified in Christ will be glorified and thus we are predestined to glory IN HIM.

Another issue is who are the 'elect.' Note, being His elect doesn't mean they will all be saved in the end.

Isaiah 45:3-5
I will give you the treasures of darkness
And hidden riches of secret places,
That you may know that I, the Lord,
Who call you by your name,
Am the God of Israel.
4 For Jacob My servant’s sake,
And Israel My elect,
I have even called you by your name;
I have named you, though you have not known Me.
5 I am the Lord, and there is no other;
There is no God besides Me.
I will gird you, though you have not known Me,

On this we completely agree! Being one of God's elect is a pretty good way to ensure you won't make it to heaven, if the biblical record is any indication!

Further, the Calvinist wants to believe that to be elect means that you've been selected by God in some arbitrary manner that has nothing to do with those who are so elected but since when does a person have nothing to do with whether they are elected or not? In what other context does an elected person have no choice about whether they either have been or will be elected?

 

[Clete]

Remember Jesus and eleven of the disciples were Jewish. Paul was Jewish as were some of his coworkers. Paul had to circumcise Timothy as he was yet working among Jews and teaching in synagogues. While part of Israel may have been cut off, another part was receiving salvation. Paul had attracted some Gentiles who were not prejudiced against him on account of his Jewishness. He spoke their language. The New Testament was recorded in Greek. A few Aramaic words are preserved in the text of the Gospels. This is because salvation was at work among the Jews.

Yes indeed! Paul addresses this exact point in Romans 11, which is yet another chapter that the Calvinist twists into talking about predestination rather than the nation of Israel having been cut off.

 

[CharismaticLady]

I do not agree that THE Twelve Apostles were predestined. The fact that there would twelve apostles may well have been but which individuals would fill those roles certainly was not.
The key phrase in all such passages is "in Him". It is groups of people that God predetermines the destiny of, not individuals. A descent analogy is that of a commercial air plane.

The owners of a particular airline flight determine in advance where a plane will be, when it will leave and what it's destination is. Those who "in the plane" are, in effect, predestined to arrive at the preordained destination. Similarly, God has determined in advance that those who are identified in Christ will be glorified and thus we are predestined to glory IN HIM.


On this we completely agree! Being one of God's elect is a pretty good way to ensure you won't make it to heaven, if the biblical record is any indication!

Further, the Calvinist wants to believe that to be elect means that you've been selected by God in some arbitrary manner that has nothing to do with those who are so elected but since when does a person have nothing to do with whether they are elected or not? In what other context does an elected person have no choice about whether they either have been or will be elected?

I read Ephesians 1 very slowly one day, and what I noticed is what I posted. Especially verse 12. It is not just Israel, but Christ's apostles specifically who were predestined (12 that we who first trusted in Christ should be to the praise of His glory.), and that they should never fall. Especially in light of Jesus' prayer for His disciples in John 17.

6 “I have manifested Your name to the men whom You have given Me out of the world. They were Yours, You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word. 7 Now they have known that all things which You have given Me are from You. 8 For I have given to them the words which You have given Me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came forth from You; and they have believed that You sent Me.

9 “I pray for them. I do not pray for the world but for those whom You have given Me, for they are Yours. 10 And all Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine, and I am glorified in them. 11 Now I am no longer in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep through Your name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as We are. 12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in Your name. Those whom You gave Me I have kept; and none of them is lost except the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled. 13 But now I come to You, and these things I speak in the world, that they may have My joy fulfilled in themselves. 14 I have given them Your word; and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. 15 I do not pray that You should take them out of the world, but that You should keep them from the evil one. 16 They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. 17 Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth. 18 As You sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. 19 And for their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they also may be sanctified by the truth.

Even Judas was predestined to fulfill Scripture.

As for those of us who have since believed, He distinguished against those who were predestines (His disciples who God gave Him):

“I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; 21 that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me. 22 And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one: 23 I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me.

24 “Father, I desire that they also whom You gave Me may be with Me where I am, that they may behold My glory which You have given Me; for You loved Me before the foundation of the world.

 

[Clete]

I read Ephesians 1 very slowly one day, and that what I noticed is what I posted. Especially in light of Jesus' prayer for His disciples in John 17.

6 “I have manifested Your name to the men whom You have given Me out of the world. They were Yours, You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word. 7 Now they have known that all things which You have given Me are from You. 8 For I have given to them the words which You have given Me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came forth from You; and they have believed that You sent Me.

9 “I pray for them. I do not pray for the world but for those whom You have given Me, for they are Yours. 10 And all Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine, and I am glorified in them. 11 Now I am no longer in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep through Your name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as We are. 12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in Your name. Those whom You gave Me I have kept; and none of them is lost except the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled. 13 But now I come to You, and these things I speak in the world, that they may have My joy fulfilled in themselves. 14 I have given them Your word; and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. 15 I do not pray that You should take them out of the world, but that You should keep them from the evil one. 16 They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. 17 Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth. 18 As You sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. 19 And for their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they also may be sanctified by the truth.

Even Judas was predestined to fulfill Scripture.

As for those of us who have since believed, He distinguished against those who were predestines (His disciples who God gave Him):

“I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; 21 that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me. 22 And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one: 23 I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me.

24 “Father, I desire that they also whom You gave Me may be with Me where I am, that they may behold My glory which You have given Me; for You loved Me before the foundation of the world.

We should define terms.

The doctrine of predestination teaches that something (or all things depending on who you're talking about) was predetermined before creation, before anyone existed, before anyone had done anything right or wrong.

We know FOR A FACT that this doctrine is flatly false because we know that God is just.

Now, you might could make an argument that God knew each of these men because of the lives they had already lived and knew that they would make great disciple for His Son and as such worked events in such a way that they would become just that. After all, these men were not enemies of God and it would not have been difficult for God to influence them in this way.

As for Judas, he was not predestined to betray Christ in any way that would preclude his ability to repent. He chose to do what he did and he absolutely could have repented, however unlikely such repentance might have been. Just as Israel could also have repented and accepted Christ as their Messiah, Judas could have refused the Sanhedrin's thirty pieces of silver.

There's a phrase you used that I think is important. You said that Judas "fulfilled scripture". That is the exact perfect way to put it. Judas did not fulfill prophecy, at least not in the sense that most people think of when they talk about a prophecy. There was no predictive prophecy that Judas fulfilled and had he chosen not to betray Christ, there would be no issue of an unfulfilled prophecy that Christians would have to find a way to explain. Not to say the predictive prophesies always come to pass, they don't but the point is that in this case, there was no such predictive prophesy.

 

[BrotherD]

When deciding to write this post, there were a lot of directions from which I could come at this chapter. What I decided would be best for an opening post is for me to simply posit what I see as how the chapter should be taken in general without going into anything like a detailed, verse by verse exposition. We can get into as much detail as might be desired later in the discussion. For now, a big picture overview of the chapter seems to be in order.

Before I do that though let me say first that I think that the Bible interprets itself and must be taken as a whole but that I also believe that individual passages of Scripture must stand on their own without being logically incoherent. In other words, we are able to determine what a passage of Scripture is saying based solely on the context of the passage itself. We do not need a theological system in place before it is possible to figure out what a section of Scripture is saying. Now, there could be, I suppose, exceptions to this general rule but Romans chapter 9 is certainly not one of them. I'm saying this at the outset because I want to draw attention to the fact that I do not draw upon any theology to interpret this chapter but only upon the text of the chapter itself as well as other Bible passages which the text of Romans 9 makes reference too, all of which couldn't be any clearer and easy to understand than they are. I also bring this up now because I think that this will become important as the conversation goes on because I do not think that the Calvinist take on this chapter makes any logical sense whatsoever and couldn't possibly be arrived at unless they are bringing their theology with them to the reading of the passage. Indeed, Paul would have to be nearly schizophrenic to write what Calvinists generally say that he wrote in this passage.

Now, with that in mind let's get to it...

In a single sentence - The ninth chapter of Romans is speaking about the cutting off of Israel.
It is quite clear that Paul is making a case that God cut off Israel and turned instead to the gentiles, and that God is justified in having done so. It will become equally clear that this is all that the chapter is about, and that it has nothing to do with predestination at all.

It helps to see it if one looks at the introduction and summation of the chapter. In the first few verses it is clear that Paul is speaking of Israel and that he is upset by their condition of unbelief...

Romans 9:1 I tell the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit, 2 that I have great sorrow and continual grief in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my *countrymen according to the flesh, 4 who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; 5 of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen.​

And then in the last few verses Paul sums up the point of what he's just been saying in the previous several verses...

Romans 9:30 What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness of faith; 31 but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law *of righteousness. 32 Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, *by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone. 33 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."​

Now, that by itself is probably enough to make it clear what Paul is talking about but what really nails it down is his reference in the body of the chapter to a couple of Old Testament passages, those being Jacob and Esau and then the Potter and the clay story.
It's always a good idea to read any Old Testament passage that is quoted or made reference to in the New, in order to maintain the context of what's being said. (Remember the whole "Bible interpreting the Bible" thing.) So let's take a look at them so that we can be on the same page that Paul was on when he made these references. Doing so will undoubtedly shed additional light on the point he was making.

Romans 9:13 As it is written, "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated."​

This is a direct quote from Malachi 1:2-3 but even the Malachi passage is not referencing the two boys themselves but the nations which came from them. I won't bother quoting it here but even a surface reading of Malachi 1 will confirm that it is talking about a nation not a person.
Likewise, Paul is talking also about a nation. We can tell this for certain because of what is quoted just before in verse 12...

Romans 9:12 "it was said to her, "The older shall serve the younger.""​

This is a direct quote from Genesis chapter 25 where it says explicitly that there are two nations in Rebecca's womb...

Genesis 25:23 "And the LORD said to her: "Two nations are in your womb, Two peoples shall be separated from your body; One people shall be stronger than the other, And the older shall serve the younger."​

Additionally, even if it didn't explicitly state that it's talking about two nations we could still know for certain that it is anyway because Esau (the older) never served Jacob (the younger). That did not happen, ever.

This passage is very clearly talking about nations and about how God deals with nations not about individuals or how God deals with individuals and Paul by referencing this material was making the exact same point. That's the reason why he referenced it.

Now let's move on to the Potter and the clay story. It is on the same topic and is found in Jeremiah chapter 18...

Jeremiah 18:1The word which came to Jeremiah from the LORD, saying: 2 "Arise and go down to the potter's house, and there I will cause you to hear My words." 3 Then I went down to the potter's house, and there he was, making something at the wheel. 4 And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter; so he made it again into another vessel, as it seemed good to the potter to make.
5 Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying: 6 "O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter?" says the LORD. "Look, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are you in My hand, O house of Israel! 7 The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it, 8 if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it. 9 And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it, 10 if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will relent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it.​

Okay, that couldn't be any clearer! Jeremiah was making the very point that Paul is making! No wonder Paul referenced this passage, it applies directly to the subject he was dealing with! It IS the subject he was dealing with! Romans 9 and Jeremiah 18 are making the exact same point; they both use the same analogy for the same reasons. For all intent and purposes Romans 9 and Jeremiah 18 are the exact same chapter! The only difference is that in Romans 9 Paul is saying that the principle described in Jeremiah 18 has been carried out by God on the nation of Israel.

Romans 9 is not about predestination at all. Paul didn't start talking about Israel and then suddenly change the subject to predestination and then just as suddenly change the subject back again to Israel. The whole chapter is on one issue and one issue only. That issue being God's absolute right to change His mind concerning His blessing of a nation that had done evil in His sight.

It's no more complicated than that. In a nutshell, Paul was simply saying that Israel's promised kingdom wasn't coming because they had rejected the King and Romans 9 is all about how God was justified in having changed His mind about giving them that kingdom. That's all it's about; nothing more, nothing less.

Resting in Him,
Clete

That was in-depth and scriptured based, thank you. That makes me look at Romans 9 differently.

In Christ

 

[Mathetes66]

Clete: Now, there could be, I suppose, exceptions to this general rule but Romans chapter 9 is certainly not one of them. I'm saying this at the outset because I want to draw attention to the fact that I do not draw upon any theology to interpret this chapter but only upon the text of the chapter itself.

I respectfully disagree with your opening premise, upon which your whole argument is made. Romans 9 IS CERTAINLY one of them. Paul's whole argument goes from Romans 9 THROUGH Romans 11. You cannot divorce ch. 9 from ch. 10 or 11.

Most Bible scholars & apologists agree: to accurately understand what Paul is saying one must study & follow his argument through all three chapters.

 

[Al Touthentop]

Yes indeed! Paul addresses this exact point in Romans 11, which is yet another chapter that the Calvinist twists into talking about predestination rather than the nation of Israel having been cut off.

But we all could be predestined because what Paul says is that this predestination is according to his foreknowledge. I totally agree that this is not arbitrary. However, God is omniscient. So whether or not he has chosen people arbitrarily, he knows beforehand who will and won't be saved and that doesn't only apply to the apostles. He knew that Judas would disobey and even prophesied that it would happen. What he didn't do is cause it to happen.

It's more like this:

If I would have known you were coming, I'd have baked you a cake.

Well, he knew we were coming. So he baked us a cake.

The only thing I would disagree with in the original post is where he writes:

So he turned to the Gentiles instead.

That implies that this was a change in course and that the Jews were cut off from the gospel. Only those Jews who refused to obey the gospel or those who turned away were cut off and they did that themselves. The Gentiles were always going to be offered the gospel. That's why Paul warns Gentile Christians that they could just as easily be cut off the olive tree.

 

[Al Touthentop]

We should define terms.

As for Judas, he was not predestined to betray Christ in any way that would preclude his ability to repent. He chose to do what he did and he absolutely could have repented, however unlikely such repentance might have been. Just as Israel could also have repented and accepted Christ as their Messiah, Judas could have refused the Sanhedrin's thirty pieces of silver.

Peter says in Acts 1 that Judas "obtained a part in this ministry."

He was saved at one time and likely he was part of the 70 whom Jesus told were written in the book of life.

I personally don't think that there is any difference in "fulfilled the scripture" and "fulfilled prophecy."

Whether he fulfilled prophecy or not, he didn't have to fulfill it, prophecy is based on God's foreknowledge of events, not his causing of those events.

I think we also have to consider the language Paul and Moses used when writing that God "hardened Pharaoh's heart." It seems to read as if God caused this hardening. And that's why so many Calvinists want to interpret this as applying everywhere. We're all just autonomous robots of God for good or evil.

But, that's not what is meant. Pharaoh took offense at God's words, he wasn't caused by God to disobey. The whole idea that Pharaoh had to disobey God is based on a lack of critical thinking on the part of certain readers. The Glory of God would have been just as great had Pharaoh succumbed immediately. He would have accomplished the task of delivering the Israelites out of Egypt either way. That he delivered them from Egypt in spite of Pharaoh's disobedience is just further demonstration of his power.

God made note of Judas' disobedience because it was proof of his foreknowledge, just as the prophecy about casting lots was recorded. He could have left off those details but it was those details that proved he was as omniscient as is proposed by Moses in Genesis.

Sometimes people read the bible as if it was written yesterday and in English.

I hope that my words do not read as if I'm criticizing you. I consider Calvinism to be blasphemy against God. It declares that God practices the standards of justice that only men propose and then tells any rational person who sees their proposals as patently unjust, that God's ways can't be understood by man. He has to just accept that God can void his own instructions because he has supreme sovereignty.

 

[paul1149]

7 The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it, 8 if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it. 9 And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it, 10 if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will relent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it.

Excellent, Clete. I was aware of the Jacob/Esau reference being to the nations, not the individuals, and spoken contemporaneously, not as predestination. But I had never made the connection to Jeremiah, which actually speaks against determinism. As with the prophecy of Jacob over Esau, I take the predestinational elements in the NT to be corporate, with the question of which individuals will be included up to our willingness to accept the free gift of saving grace.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

I do not agree that THE Twelve Apostles were predestined. The fact that there would be twelve apostles may well have been but which individuals would fill those roles certainly was not.
The key phrase in all such passages is "in Him". It is groups of people that God predetermines the destiny of, not individuals. A descent analogy is that of a commercial air plane.

Let’s stick with scripture rather than unbiblical analogies. The bible teaches that Judas was the son of perdition from the beginning. He was created for
the very purpose and role as the traitor who would betray Jesus. Jesus
said of Judas it would of been better off for him to not even been born
than to betray the Son of Man.
John 6:63-65
The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. 64 Yet
there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus had known from
the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray
Him. 65 He went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can
come to me unless the Father has enabled him."

John 6:70-71
Then Jesus replied, "Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of
you is a devil!" 71 (He meant Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, who,
though one of the Twelve, was later to betray Him.)

John 12:4-6
But one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, who was later to betray Him,
objected, 5 "Why wasn't this perfume sold and the money given to the
poor? It was worth a year's wages." 6 He did not say this because he
cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the
money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it.

John 13:10-11
10 Jesus answered, "A person who has had a bath needs only to wash
his feet; his whole body is clean. And you are clean, though not every
one of you." 11 For He knew who was going to betray Him, and that
was why He said not every one was clean.

John 17:12
12 While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by
that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed
to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled.

Matt 26:23-25
23 Jesus replied, "The one who has dipped his hand into the bowl with
me will betray me. 24 The Son of Man will go just as it is written about
him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born."
25 Then Judas, the one who would betray him, said, "Surely not I,
Rabbi?"
Jesus answered, "Yes, it is you."

Acts 1:16-19
16 and said, "Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled which the Holy
Spirit spoke long ago through the mouth of David concerning Judas,
who served as guide for those who arrested Jesus— 17 he was one of
our number and shared in this ministry."
18 (With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field;
there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled
out. 19 Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that
field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)

Acts 1:24-26
Show us which of these two you have chosen 25 to take over this
apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs." 26 Then
they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the
eleven apostles.

Ps 109:4-8
In return for my friendship they accuse me,
but I am a man of prayer.
5 They repay me evil for good,
and hatred for my friendship.
6 Appoint an evil man to oppose him;
let an accuser stand at his right hand.
7 When he is tried, let him be found guilty,
and may his prayers condemn him.
8 May his days be few;
may another take his place of leadership.

I can also show that Paul was predestined / elect like the rest of the Apostles.

hope this helps !!!

 

[CharismaticLady]

We should define terms.

The doctrine of predestination teaches that something (or all things depending on who you're talking about) was predetermined before creation, before anyone existed, before anyone had done anything right or wrong.

We know FOR A FACT that this doctrine is flatly false because we know that God is just.

Now, you might could make an argument that God knew each of these men because of the lives they had already lived and knew that they would make great disciple for His Son and as such worked events in such a way that they would become just that. After all, these men were not enemies of God and it would not have been difficult for God to influence them in this way.

As for Judas, he was not predestined to betray Christ in any way that would preclude his ability to repent. He chose to do what he did and he absolutely could have repented, however unlikely such repentance might have been. Just as Israel could also have repented and accepted Christ as their Messiah, Judas could have refused the Sanhedrin's thirty pieces of silver.

There's a phrase you used that I think is important. You said that Judas "fulfilled scripture". That is the exact perfect way to put it. Judas did not fulfill prophecy, at least not in the sense that most people think of when they talk about a prophecy. There was no predictive prophecy that Judas fulfilled and had he chosen not to betray Christ, there would be no issue of an unfulfilled prophecy that Christians would have to find a way to explain. Not to say the predictive prophesies always come to pass, they don't but the point is that in this case, there was no such predictive prophesy.

What do you believe "predestined" in Ephesians 1 means, and who is Paul speaking of?

 

[bling]

When deciding to write this post, there were a lot of directions from which I could come at this chapter. What I decided would be best for an opening post is for me to simply posit what I see as how the chapter should be taken in general without going into anything like a detailed, verse by verse exposition. We can get into as much detail as might be desired later in the discussion. For now, a big picture overview of the chapter seems to be in order.

Before I do that though let me say first that I think that the Bible interprets itself and must be taken as a whole but that I also believe that individual passages of Scripture must stand on their own without being logically incoherent. In other words, we are able to determine what a passage of Scripture is saying based solely on the context of the passage itself. We do not need a theological system in place before it is possible to figure out what a section of Scripture is saying. Now, there could be, I suppose, exceptions to this general rule but Romans chapter 9 is certainly not one of them. I'm saying this at the outset because I want to draw attention to the fact that I do not draw upon any theology to interpret this chapter but only upon the text of the chapter itself as well as other Bible passages which the text of Romans 9 makes reference too, all of which couldn't be any clearer and easy to understand than they are. I also bring this up now because I think that this will become important as the conversation goes on because I do not think that the Calvinist take on this chapter makes any logical sense whatsoever and couldn't possibly be arrived at unless they are bringing their theology with them to the reading of the passage. Indeed, Paul would have to be nearly schizophrenic to write what Calvinists generally say that he wrote in this passage.

Now, with that in mind let's get to it...

In a single sentence - The ninth chapter of Romans is speaking about the cutting off of Israel.
It is quite clear that Paul is making a case that God cut off Israel and turned instead to the gentiles, and that God is justified in having done so. It will become equally clear that this is all that the chapter is about, and that it has nothing to do with predestination at all.

It helps to see it if one looks at the introduction and summation of the chapter. In the first few verses it is clear that Paul is speaking of Israel and that he is upset by their condition of unbelief...

Romans 9:1 I tell the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit, 2 that I have great sorrow and continual grief in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my *countrymen according to the flesh, 4 who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; 5 of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen.​

And then in the last few verses Paul sums up the point of what he's just been saying in the previous several verses...

Romans 9:30 What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness of faith; 31 but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law *of righteousness. 32 Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, *by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone. 33 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."​

Now, that by itself is probably enough to make it clear what Paul is talking about but what really nails it down is his reference in the body of the chapter to a couple of Old Testament passages, those being Jacob and Esau and then the Potter and the clay story.
It's always a good idea to read any Old Testament passage that is quoted or made reference to in the New, in order to maintain the context of what's being said. (Remember the whole "Bible interpreting the Bible" thing.) So let's take a look at them so that we can be on the same page that Paul was on when he made these references. Doing so will undoubtedly shed additional light on the point he was making.

Romans 9:13 As it is written, "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated."​

This is a direct quote from Malachi 1:2-3 but even the Malachi passage is not referencing the two boys themselves but the nations which came from them. I won't bother quoting it here but even a surface reading of Malachi 1 will confirm that it is talking about a nation not a person.
Likewise, Paul is talking also about a nation. We can tell this for certain because of what is quoted just before in verse 12...

Romans 9:12 "it was said to her, "The older shall serve the younger.""​

This is a direct quote from Genesis chapter 25 where it says explicitly that there are two nations in Rebecca's womb...

Genesis 25:23 "And the LORD said to her: "Two nations are in your womb, Two peoples shall be separated from your body; One people shall be stronger than the other, And the older shall serve the younger."​

Additionally, even if it didn't explicitly state that it's talking about two nations we could still know for certain that it is anyway because Esau (the older) never served Jacob (the younger). That did not happen, ever.

This passage is very clearly talking about nations and about how God deals with nations not about individuals or how God deals with individuals and Paul by referencing this material was making the exact same point. That's the reason why he referenced it.

Now let's move on to the Potter and the clay story. It is on the same topic and is found in Jeremiah chapter 18...

Jeremiah 18:1The word which came to Jeremiah from the LORD, saying: 2 "Arise and go down to the potter's house, and there I will cause you to hear My words." 3 Then I went down to the potter's house, and there he was, making something at the wheel. 4 And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter; so he made it again into another vessel, as it seemed good to the potter to make.
5 Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying: 6 "O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter?" says the LORD. "Look, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are you in My hand, O house of Israel! 7 The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it, 8 if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it. 9 And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it, 10 if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will relent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it.​

Okay, that couldn't be any clearer! Jeremiah was making the very point that Paul is making! No wonder Paul referenced this passage, it applies directly to the subject he was dealing with! It IS the subject he was dealing with! Romans 9 and Jeremiah 18 are making the exact same point; they both use the same analogy for the same reasons. For all intent and purposes Romans 9 and Jeremiah 18 are the exact same chapter! The only difference is that in Romans 9 Paul is saying that the principle described in Jeremiah 18 has been carried out by God on the nation of Israel.

Romans 9 is not about predestination at all. Paul didn't start talking about Israel and then suddenly change the subject to predestination and then just as suddenly change the subject back again to Israel. The whole chapter is on one issue and one issue only. That issue being God's absolute right to change His mind concerning His blessing of a nation that had done evil in His sight.

It's no more complicated than that. In a nutshell, Paul was simply saying that Israel's promised kingdom wasn't coming because they had rejected the King and Romans 9 is all about how God was justified in having changed His mind about giving them that kingdom. That's all it's about; nothing more, nothing less.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Hi Clete,

I fully agree that Romans 9 is not talking about predestining a person or nation to salvation, but do not agree with the “idea” this is talking about only the Jewish nation.

As you say we must be consistent and take everything in context, but we need to start with the context of the entire letter:

This is not written to nonbelieving Jews in Rome since they would not even read a letter from Paul, but was written to Gentile and Jewish Christians in Rome with the huge issue of not fellowshipping each other (individually).

Paul did not establish the Church in Rome but from the list of the people he knows in Rome and the person taking the letter back to Rome suggest he is will known and respected as a evangelist to the Gentiles and as a learned Jew to the Jews.

Paul is the very best person to address the un-fellowshipping issue in Rome, but Paul will have to use the very best logic to since he does not have a deep personal relation with the Jewish or Gentile Christians.

Besides seeing how Ro. 9 fits into all of Romans we also need to Look at Ro. 9-11 since they go together in one theme, but again it is all directed at the one huge issue.

There is an urgency to resolving the issue, since both the Jewish and Gentile Christians will soon be under severe persecution and most will flee Rome (hopefully together).

Why it is referring to individuals and not nations is supported by the following:



“See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes people to stumble and a rock that makes them fall, and the one who believes in him will never be put to shame.”

And

Though the number of the Israelites be like the sand by the sea,

only the remnant will be saved.

Rm 11: 32 For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

Is individualistic.

Paul starts in verse 6 saying “not all who are descended…” which would apply to an individual. Then Paul gives allegory verse 9-18, using only individual people, Isaac, Ishmael, Jacob, Esau, Moses and Pharaoh. Paul than says “one of you…” and this same one of you also asks: “Who is able… and “why do you make me…”

Those are not nations, but individuals.

I do agree Jacob and Esau in the quote “Jacob I love and Esau I hate” is most likely referring to nations, but the Jews would use that phrase to put Gentiles down and the Gentile Christians might have already heard it “said” of them.

The main idea Paul is getting across in Ro.9-11 is this:

How are Jews and Gentiles equal in salvation and living the Christian life? Rm 10: 12 For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13 for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

Also, Paul is using the Potter and Clay analogy very differently then Jerimiah analogy with the potter in Jer.18. Jerimiah is talking about the process of molding the clay while it is still very pliable and in the potter’s hands, while Paul is talking about the completed vessel with the Potters mark on it leaving the shop.

Here is a brief explanation of Ro.9

Paul uses two teaching methods throughout Romans even secular philosophy classes will use Romans as the best example of these methods. Paul does an excellent job of building one premise on the previous premises to develop his final conclusions. Paul uses an ancient form of rhetoric known as diatribe (imaginary debate) asking questions and most of the time giving a strong “By no means” and then goes on to explain “why not”. Paul’s method goes beyond just a general diatribe and follows closely to the diatribes used in the individual laments in the Psalms and throughout the Old Testament, which the Jewish Christians would have known extensively. These “questions or comments” are given by an “imaginary” student making it more a dialog with the readers (students) and not just a “sermon”.

The main topic repeated extensively in Romans is the division in the Christian house churches in Rome between the Jews and Gentile Christians. You can just look up how many times Jews and gentiles are referred to see this as a huge issue.



The main question (a diatribe question) in Romans 9 Paul addresses is God being fair or just Rms. 9: 14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all!



This will take some explaining, since just prior in Romans 9, Paul went over some history of God’s dealings with the Israelites that sounds very “unjust” like “loving Jacob and hating Esau” before they were born, but remember in all of Paul’s diatribes he begins before, just after or before and just after with strong support for the wrong answer (this makes it more of a debate and giving the opposition the first shot as done in all diatribes).



Who in Rome would be having a “problem” with God choosing to work with Isaac and Jacob instead of Ishmael and Esau? Would the Jewish Christian have a problem with this or would it be the Gentile Christians?



If God treaded you as privileged and special would you have a problem or would you have a problem if you were treated seemingly as common and others were treated with honor for no apparent reason?



This is the issue and Paul will explain over the rest of Romans 9-11.



Paul is specific with the issue Rms. 9: 19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?”



The Jews were created in a special honorable position that would bring forth the Messiah and everyone else was common in comparison (the Gentiles).



How do we know Paul is specifically addressing the Jew/Gentile issue? Rms. 9: 30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone.



Paul is showing from the position of being made “common” vessels by God the Gentiles had an advantage over the born Israelites (vessels of honor) that had the Law, since the Law became a stumbling stone to them. They both needed faith to rely on God’s Love to forgive them.



Without going into the details of Romans 9-11 we conclude with this diatribe question: Romans 11: 11 Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12 But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their full inclusion bring!



The common vessels (gentiles) and the vessels of honor (Jews) are equal individually in what is really significant when it comes to salvation, so God is not being unjust or unfair with either group.



If there is still a question about who is being addressed in this section of Rms. 9-11, Paul tells us: Rms. 11: 13 I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I take pride in my ministry 14 in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them.

Rm 9: 22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction?

This verse is not saying all the “vessels” created for a “common purpose” were created for destruction (they were not made from the start by the Potter “clay pigeons”). Everything that leaves the potter’s shop is of great quality. Those vessels for destruction can come from either the common group or the honor group, but God is being patient with them that will eventually be destroyed. The vessels God does develop great wrath against, will be readied for destruction, but how did they become worthy of destruction since they left the potter’s shop with his mark on them? Any vessel (honorable or common) that becomes damaged is not worthy of the potters signature and He would want it destroyed.

To understand this as Common vessels and special vessels look at the same idea using the same Greek words of Paul in 2 Tim 2: 20. There Paul even points out the common can become the honored vessel.

That is a short explanation, since you really need to study all of Romans especially chapters 9, 10 and 11. Also please look at individual laments in the Psalms and diatribes in general, I really cut those short.

 

[dqhall]

Yes indeed! Paul addresses this exact point in Romans 11, which is yet another chapter that the Calvinist twists into talking about predestination rather than the nation of Israel having been cut off.

I was reading about branches being broken off in order for believers to be grafted in (Romans 11). This does not seem like predestination, but like improvising as opportunity arises.

In a Gospel Jesus was nearing his trial and execution. He prayed for those who his father had given to him. He did not pray for those who had rejected God’s plan. Some people will get more of God’s attention than others. God knows if a sparrow falls from the sky. God knows the number of hairs on your head.

 

[CharismaticLady]

Hi Clete,

I fully agree that Romans 9 is not talking about predestining a person or nation to salvation, but do not agree with the “idea” this is talking about only the Jewish nation.

As you say we must be consistent and take everything in context, but we need to start with the context of the entire letter:

This is not written to nonbelieving Jews in Rome since they would not even read a letter from Paul, but was written to Gentile and Jewish Christians in Rome with the huge issue of not fellowshipping each other (individually).

Paul did not establish the Church in Rome but from the list of the people he knows in Rome and the person taking the letter back to Rome suggest he is will known and respected as a evangelist to the Gentiles and as a learned Jew to the Jews.

Paul is the very best person to address the un-fellowshipping issue in Rome, but Paul will have to use the very best logic to since he does not have a deep personal relation with the Jewish or Gentile Christians.

Besides seeing how Ro. 9 fits into all of Romans we also need to Look at Ro. 9-11 since they go together in one theme, but again it is all directed at the one huge issue.

There is an urgency to resolving the issue, since both the Jewish and Gentile Christians will soon be under severe persecution and most will flee Rome (hopefully together).

Why it is referring to individuals and not nations is supported by the following:



“See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes people to stumble and a rock that makes them fall, and the one who believes in him will never be put to shame.”

And

Though the number of the Israelites be like the sand by the sea,

only the remnant will be saved.

Rm 11: 32 For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

Is individualistic.

Paul starts in verse 6 saying “not all who are descended…” which would apply to an individual. Then Paul gives allegory verse 9-18, using only individual people, Isaac, Ishmael, Jacob, Esau, Moses and Pharaoh. Paul than says “one of you…” and this same one of you also asks: “Who is able… and “why do you make me…”

Those are not nations, but individuals.

I do agree Jacob and Esau in the quote “Jacob I love and Esau I hate” is most likely referring to nations, but the Jews would use that phrase to put Gentiles down and the Gentile Christians might have already heard it “said” of them.

The main idea Paul is getting across in Ro.9-11 is this:

How are Jews and Gentiles equal in salvation and living the Christian life? Rm 10: 12 For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13 for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

Also, Paul is using the Potter and Clay analogy very differently then Jerimiah analogy with the potter in Jer.18. Jerimiah is talking about the process of molding the clay while it is still very pliable and in the potter’s hands, while Paul is talking about the completed vessel with the Potters mark on it leaving the shop.

Here is a brief explanation of Ro.9

Paul uses two teaching methods throughout Romans even secular philosophy classes will use Romans as the best example of these methods. Paul does an excellent job of building one premise on the previous premises to develop his final conclusions. Paul uses an ancient form of rhetoric known as diatribe (imaginary debate) asking questions and most of the time giving a strong “By no means” and then goes on to explain “why not”. Paul’s method goes beyond just a general diatribe and follows closely to the diatribes used in the individual laments in the Psalms and throughout the Old Testament, which the Jewish Christians would have known extensively. These “questions or comments” are given by an “imaginary” student making it more a dialog with the readers (students) and not just a “sermon”.

The main topic repeated extensively in Romans is the division in the Christian house churches in Rome between the Jews and Gentile Christians. You can just look up how many times Jews and gentiles are referred to see this as a huge issue.



The main question (a diatribe question) in Romans 9 Paul addresses is God being fair or just Rms. 9: 14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all!



This will take some explaining, since just prior in Romans 9, Paul went over some history of God’s dealings with the Israelites that sounds very “unjust” like “loving Jacob and hating Esau” before they were born, but remember in all of Paul’s diatribes he begins before, just after or before and just after with strong support for the wrong answer (this makes it more of a debate and giving the opposition the first shot as done in all diatribes).



Who in Rome would be having a “problem” with God choosing to work with Isaac and Jacob instead of Ishmael and Esau? Would the Jewish Christian have a problem with this or would it be the Gentile Christians?



If God treaded you as privileged and special would you have a problem or would you have a problem if you were treated seemingly as common and others were treated with honor for no apparent reason?



This is the issue and Paul will explain over the rest of Romans 9-11.



Paul is specific with the issue Rms. 9: 19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?”



The Jews were created in a special honorable position that would bring forth the Messiah and everyone else was common in comparison (the Gentiles).



How do we know Paul is specifically addressing the Jew/Gentile issue? Rms. 9: 30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone.



Paul is showing from the position of being made “common” vessels by God the Gentiles had an advantage over the born Israelites (vessels of honor) that had the Law, since the Law became a stumbling stone to them. They both needed faith to rely on God’s Love to forgive them.



Without going into the details of Romans 9-11 we conclude with this diatribe question: Romans 11: 11 Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12 But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their full inclusion bring!



The common vessels (gentiles) and the vessels of honor (Jews) are equal individually in what is really significant when it comes to salvation, so God is not being unjust or unfair with either group.



If there is still a question about who is being addressed in this section of Rms. 9-11, Paul tells us: Rms. 11: 13 I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I take pride in my ministry 14 in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them.

Rm 9: 22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction?

This verse is not saying all the “vessels” created for a “common purpose” were created for destruction (they were not made from the start by the Potter “clay pigeons”). Everything that leaves the potter’s shop is of great quality. Those vessels for destruction can come from either the common group or the honor group, but God is being patient with them that will eventually be destroyed. The vessels God does develop great wrath against, will be readied for destruction, but how did they become worthy of destruction since they left the potter’s shop with his mark on them? Any vessel (honorable or common) that becomes damaged is not worthy of the potters signature and He would want it destroyed.

To understand this as Common vessels and special vessels look at the same idea using the same Greek words of Paul in 2 Tim 2: 20. There Paul even points out the common can become the honored vessel.

That is a short explanation, since you really need to study all of Romans especially chapters 9, 10 and 11. Also please look at individual laments in the Psalms and diatribes in general, I really cut those short.

I believe Romans 9 is about Israel and must be read in context with the next two chapters through 11.

 

[Peter John]

I am not a calvinist, but do believe in predestination, & no freewill. If you don't you could do what your President Thomas Jefferson did, & carefully cut out verses you don't agree with, & make your own bible, & go against God saying in Rev22v18-19
18 For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
Although predestination is only mentioned 8 times in the new testament, it runs throughout. Israel was & is the apple of God's eye, His elect sheep, spiritual Israel. I am not Jewish, but I am part of spiritual Israel (elect church), made up of individuals that God has chosen, around the world. Jn15v16 "You did not choose Me, but I chose you".

 

[CharismaticLady]

I am not a calvinist, but do believe in predestination, & no freewill. If you don't you could do what your President Thomas Jefferson did, & carefully cut out verses you don't agree with, & make your own bible, & go against God saying in Rev22v18-19
18 For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
Although predestination is only mentioned 8 times in the new testament, it runs throughout. Israel was & is the apple of God's eye, His elect sheep, spiritual Israel. I am not Jewish, but I am part of spiritual Israel (elect church), made up of individuals that God has chosen, around the world. Jn15v16 "You did not choose Me, but I chose you".

I hope you read all of chapter John 15.

2. Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit He takes away

14 You are My friends if you do whatever I command you.

Jesus died for the whole world, but not all of the world will remain and not be lopped off because they did not keep the commands of Jesus.

Partial truths taking one verse out of the context of the whole like you have done produces heresies. Two heresies in the Church are Universalism and OSAS.

 

[bling]

I believe Romans 9 is about Israel and must be read in context with the next two chapters through 11.

I am very much reading it in context especially of the issue Paul is addressing with the Jews and gentile Christians in Rome "problem".
The answer being specifically: Rm 10: 12 For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13 for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
it is not dealing with the "nation of Israel", but with the individual Jewish and gentile Christians.
Paul is always talking about changing individuals and does the very best communicating of the problem and the answer.