X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 11:09:00 EST
From:         "DRCV06::GRAHAM" <GRAHAM%DRCV06.decnet@DRCVAX.AF.MIL>
Subject:      Answer to Wolfgang, Romans 9.

Wolfgang, your question deserves a good answer.  I'm listening to Romans
9-11 and writing at the same time.  I'll try to explain what I see
happening there and why Paul is explaining the exact opposite of what most
people think he is saying.  First off, it is necessary to let Paul speak
and not interpose any interpretation upon him.  We need to adopt the
attitude that he means what he says, and that he is not being overly obtuse
nor furigurative.

In Romans 9:1 - 5, Paul laments that he cannot sacrifice himself for all
Israel to be saved.  This, in itself, says a volume.  He realized that all
Israel cannot be saved, regardless of the blessings bestowed on them he
ennumerates in verses 3 to 5.  In verse six of chapter 9, he begins to
explain the true situation and he starts out by saying that just because a
person is of the Abrahamic descent, that does not make him a true
Israelite.

Paul then expands his example and shows that only the children through
Isaac were of the promise, and, not even all of them.  He says that Esau
was hated and Jacob loved before either had committed a single act of good
or bad.  He is showing  that God had his elect in Israel, but that not all
of the "nation" was elect, not by any means.

Paul here is using this as a springboard to discuss both predestination and
the complete sovbereignty of God.  He says that man's desire is irrelevant,
that God runs and wills.  He points out that Pharoah's hardening of heart
was not his idea alone, but that God raised him up for that express
puspose.  All this, again, to show that only those in Israel whom God
elected were his children, the rest were baggage for a specific purpose, to
provide a people through whom the Messiah would come.

Now, don't y'all get upset about the word "baggage."  It is not to
denegrate the humanity of any person, but to show that the vast majority of
the Israelites were not elect, they were only to serve a purpose.

In verse 19, still in chapter 9, Paul, anticipating argument, tackles
head-on the obvious opposition.  He says that it is none of our business
why God does such things.  He uses the analogy of a potter and shows that
the master potter can form vessals as he chooses and the vessals should,
indeed cannot, argue.  This is not meant to be harsh, just a description of
what is.  Paul is not willing to let people continue thinking that God is
not in complete charge of everything, including who is saved and who not.

In verse 24, Paul goes on to say that the called, the objects of God's
love, are called from both the gentiles and Jews.  Earlier in Romans he has
said emphatically that in Christ there is no Jew nor Greek nor male nor
female but just people saved in Jesus.

Verse 28 is a nexus here.  It is only a remanant of Israel who were God's
people, and in the preceeding verses Paul, quoting from Hosea, says that
God will declare gentiles also to be His people.  So, that of Israel who
are saved, who are God's people, are only a remamant, not the nation as a
whole.

The remaining verses in chapter nine show most distinctly that only the
elect of Israel didn't stumble over the stone, which was Christ, which was
placed there on purpose by the Father so they WOULD stumble over it.

I think I'd better do chapters ten and eleven in eparate posts uniess this
will get too long for the comfort of lots of readers.

I hope this is of some value,

Dan Graham
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU