How To Understand Romans Chapter 9

[eternally-gratefull]

i don't understand what you're upset about, Devo.
do you want me to just click "like" on the OP and confine all replies to "yeah OP is 100%" ??

boring thread, IMO.

there is way more in this text than "the Jews rejected Christ" and chasing all that "more" down leads all over the scripture.
even the first obvious question arising from that statement, "why did they reject Him?" encompasses the whole Bible and hasn't yet been fully explored in thousands of years of human thought.

the book is not just about the jews rejecting Jesus, It speaks of Gods plan, being fulfilled IN SPITE OF the jews rejecting, in fact, it shows it was prophesied the jew would reject, and the gentile would be recieved, and given what she had, and then they too would reject, and Isreal would be brought back in.

if one looks at rom 9 just from one aspect (the jews rejected) they are missing way to much material. and probably do not understand the 3 chapters at all.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Having reading skills and using them are two different things.

attacking people will never get them to change their view and see yours.

 

[DevotiontoBible]

i don't understand what you're upset about, Devo.
do you want me to just click "like" on the OP and confine all replies to "yeah OP is 100%" ??

boring thread, IMO.

there is way more in this text than "the Jews rejected Christ" and chasing all that "more" down leads all over the scripture.
even the first obvious question arising from that statement, "why did they reject Him?" encompasses the whole Bible and hasn't yet been fully explored in thousands of years of human thought.

I'm not upset. This chapter is about the Jews having a problem with Jesus. They still have the same problem today. It isn't anything about God predestinating certain people to eternal life.

 

[DevotiontoBible]

attacking people will never get them to change their view and see yours.

I'm attacking what he is doing.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I'm attacking what he is doing.

does not matter You still attacked him personally, and when you do this, You will never get anyone to open their mind about what you are saying, if anything, you will anger them or get them to view you as arrogant or self righteous.

Your also using a strawman, and not the word of God to try to prove your point, which does not help support your view at all. so its basically a waste of time which can NEVER have good consequences

lets not be the pharisee,

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I'm not upset. This chapter is about the Jews having a problem with Jesus. They still have the same problem today. It isn't anything about God predestinating certain people to eternal life.

see now this is good. You gave your view, and it is a place where a discussion can begin,

and by the way I agree with you.

 

[posthuman]

You said it in your post #81:

"none of these are "the existence of the Messiah" -- that Christ has indeed come is not in any doubt at all neither in this chapter nor in the whole epistle. whether the Jews reject or accept Him doesn't change the fact that He is who He is; i don't see that argument being made in Romans at all. "

i said this isn't about 'the existence of the Messiah' because you said this:

How about interpreting within the context of the chapter. Then it means 'has God's Word failed about Jesus being the Messiah to the Jews since the Jews are rejecting Him?'

'has God's word failed about Jesus being the Messiah'

whether Jesus is the Messiah or not isn't a point of any contention at all.

'since the Jews are rejecting Him'

whether He is the Messiah or not doesn't depend on whether the Jews reject Him or not. it's not about 'has God failed to send the Messiah' but about has He failed to keep His promises to Israel in light of the fact that the Messiah has come and was received by Gentiles while being rejected nationally by Israel.

that's not at all saying that Romans 9 has nothing to do with the Jews rejecting their King. i've been saying there's an awful lot more to the story ((Paul doesn't even quit talking about Israel until ch. 12, so..)) and what you quoted back to me there was correcting what i guess may have just been a poorly phrased statement of yours.

AFAIK i'm not at all rejecting or ignoring context. this chapter alone quotes and alludes to scripture from Genesis to Malachi, and Paul writes about the same subject for several chapters in a row. the context is far broader than these few paragraphs.

in re: is Jesus 'not' the Messiah on account of Israel rejecting Him?
of course He is:

They have provoked My jealousy by that which is not God; they have enraged Me with their worthless idols. So I will make them jealous by those who are not a people; I will make them angry by a nation without understanding. ​

(Deuteronomy 32:21)​

​

this passage is cited in Romans 10:19 as being about Christ, in relation to Israel's national rejection of Him. it is foretold ((in fact 'predestined' IOW haha)).

 

[posthuman]

I'm attacking what he is doing.

i don't think i'm doing whatever it is you think i'm doing

 

[DevotiontoBible]

i don't think i'm doing whatever it is you think i'm doing

Taking out of context and eisegesis is using poor reading skills.

 

[posthuman]

Taking out of context and eisegesis is using poor reading skills.

i've been all along taking steps to affirm to you that what i'm talking about is directly related to this chapter, even if what i quote is found in other parts of the scripture. i.e. "not out of context"

as far as eisegesis, what do you suppose is a good way to describe someone who reads only the first and last sentences of a chapter, then forces everything in-between to no more than varied restatements of a single predetermined premise?
wouldn't you be guilty of taking a pre-formed philosophy ((e.g. 'predestination can't possibly be true')) and approaching the text with the purpose in mind of conforming it to align with your view, disallowing on first principles any interpretation that may hint to the contrary?

i try to read what the text actually says, ask questions, and look for the answers. that's not eisegesis. that's inquiry.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Taking out of context and eisegesis is using poor reading skills.

same could be said of you,

once again, these are strawman arguments which do nothing to prove your point. It just turns people off and makes you look boastful.

 

[DevotiontoBible]

i've been all along taking steps to affirm to you that what i'm talking about is directly related to this chapter, even if what i quote is found in other parts of the scripture. i.e. "not out of context"

as far as eisegesis, what do you suppose is a good way to describe someone who reads only the first and last sentences of a chapter, then forces everything in-between to no more than varied restatements of a single predetermined premise?
wouldn't you be guilty of taking a pre-formed philosophy ((e.g. 'predestination can't possibly be true')) and approaching the text with the purpose in mind of conforming it to align with your view, disallowing on first principles any interpretation that may hint to the contrary?

i try to read what the text actually says, ask questions, and look for the answers. that's not eisegesis. that's inquiry.

Ignoring what I said in the OP and replacing those verses with verses from other Bible books is eisegesis.

 

[DevotiontoBible]

same could be said of you,

once again, these are strawman arguments which do nothing to prove your point. It just turns people off and makes you look boastful.

No, it can't. I follow sound hermeneutical principles.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

No, it can't. I follow sound hermeneutical principles.

So do we. In our view)

yet we both can't be right, i\

instead of being arrogant, why dont you just discuss your view and why (biblically) you believe the way you do, instead of just saying because you are right and we are wrong, Kids do that. they look foolish don't they? SO why do adults try to do this?

 

[posthuman]

First, read verses 1 and 2. Next, read verses 30, 31, and 32. Now that you have the idea what Paul is saying in that chapter go ahead and read all the stuff in between interpreting it all in light of these verses you first read

this is telling me essentially,

• read 5 verses entirely separated from their context.
• form an interpretation based solely on these isolated verses.
• now read everything else, conforming it to fit your pre-determined conclusions.

come on, man -- that sounds to me a heck of a lot closer to eisegesis than reading, asking questions about what you read, and chasing down answers.

 

[ComeLordJesus]

In the article I posted by Greg Boyd he said:

"Throughout Romans 9 through 11 Paul was at pains to show that God’s goal all along had been to reach out beyond the borders of Israel and win the whole world (Rom 9:25-26, 33; 10:10-21; 11:11-12). Indeed, Paul insisted God was yet going to attain his goal. But since Israel as a nation had rejected the Messiah, Paul argued, God was now going to use their blindness rather than their obedience to achieve it (Rom. 11:11-32).
In Jeremiah 18 the Lord showed Jeremiah a potter who was working on a vessel that didn’t turn out right. So the potter revised his plan and formed a different kind of pot out of it (Jere 18:1-4). In the same way, the Lord said, since he is the potter and Israel is the clay, he has the right and is willing to “change his mind” about his plans for Israel if they will simply repent (Jere. 18:4-11).

In Jeremiah 18 the Lord showed Jeremiah a potter who was working on a vessel that didn’t turn out right. So the potter revised his plan and formed a different kind of pot out of it (Jere 18:1-4). In the same way, the Lord said, since he is the potter and Israel is the clay, he has the right and is willing to “change his mind” about his plans for Israel if they will simply repent (Jere. 18:4-11). Indeed, the Lord announced that whenever he’s going to judge a nation, he is willing to change his mind if the nation repents. Conversely, whenever God announces that he’s going to bless a nation, he will change his mind if that nation turns away from him. In other words, the point of the potter-clay analogy is not God’s unilateral control, but God’s willingness and right to change his plans in response to changing hearts.

The passage fits perfectly with the point Paul is making in Romans 9. While some individual Jews had accepted Jesus as the Messiah, the nation as a whole had rejected Jesus, and thus rejected God’s purpose for themselves (cf. Lk 7:30). Hence, though God had previously blessed Israel, he was now changing his mind about them and was hardening them. Ironically, and shockingly, the Jews were finding themselves in the same position as their old nemesis Pharaoh. He had hardened his heart toward God, so God responded by hardening him further in order to raise him up to further his own sovereign purposes (Rom 9: 17). So too, Paul was arguing, God was now hardening the Jews in their self-chosen unbelief to further his sovereign purposes. He was going to use their rebellion to do what he had always hoped their obedience would do: namely, bring the non-Jewish world into a relationship with him (Rom 11:11-12)."

 

[DevotiontoBible]

this is telling me essentially,

• read 5 verses entirely separated from their context.
• form an interpretation based solely on these isolated verses.
• now read everything else, conforming it to fit your pre-determined conclusions.

come on, man -- that sounds to me a heck of a lot closer to eisegesis than reading, asking questions about what you read, and chasing down answers.

The interpretation MUST include the verses in the OP but you ignore them because you prefer your Calvinist doctrine instead.

 

[posthuman]

The interpretation MUST include the verses in the OP ALL THE VERSES

fixed your typo for you

 

[DevotiontoBible]

fixed your typo for you

See, there you go again taking me out of context from the rest of my sentence. You are hopelessly adrift in your illiterate practices.

 

[posthuman]

See, there you go again taking me out of context from the rest of my sentence. You are hopelessly adrift in your illiterate practices.

my apologies, if i accused you of ignoring scripture and made some mean insinuation about 'arminian heresy' would it be more true to the context of your post?