Roger,,,,you really hven't said anything up above.
HOW is Paul answering the Jewish objection?
WHAT is the Jewish objection?
WHAT is his argument?
I think if you review my previous post again, you will find the answers to your questions there.
HOW is Paul answering the Jewish objection?
To understand Paul, we need to recognize that he structures his arguments around certain "givens" he states at the beginning.
This particular argument begins with several givens:
Given that:
- My kinsmen, according to the flesh are Israelites
- The adoption as sons, the glory, the covenant belong to them
- They were given the Law and the temple service and the promises
- From whom are the Fathers
- From whom is the Christ according to the flesh.
WHAT is the Jewish objection?
OBJECTION:
According to Paul, the gospel says that anyone, both Jews and Gentiles are justified by faith in Jesus Christ and not by works of the law. Those who oppose this Gospel will say that Paul is a false teacher because God gave his word to his kinsmen that the adoption of sons belongs to
them.
Given that Israel hasn't accepted their messiah, and given that they remained stubborn and hard-hearted is empirical evidence that the Gospel Paul preaches must be false teaching. Because God gave his word that he would bring his people back to the land, and once relocated in the land, he would circumcise their hearts. Deuteronomy 30:5-7
There is nothing in the book of Deuteronomy suggesting that God will circumcise the hearts of believers. Rather, the conditions for salvation in that passage are 1) return to the land, and 2) keep the law of Moses. When that event takes place, God will circumcise their hearts.
Therefore, Paul's gospel must be false, since God did not circumcise the hearts of his people who returned to the land and kept the law of Moses.
Do you see why a Jewish Bible student, familiar with the Book of Deuteronomy, might object to Paul's gospel?
WHAT is his argument?
The word of God didn't fail because his promises weren't based on ethnicity or family affiliation. They were always based on God's choice. God chose Isaac over Ishmael, and he chose Jacob over Esau.
While it is true that God made promises to the Israelites, God reserves the right to "have mercy on whom he will have mercy."
Why do you believe Jacob was to inherit the promise and not Esau?
Was Jacob a good leader?
We know this.
But why Jacob?
Paul says God made the decision to bless Jacob before Jacob was born so that it would be clear that God's purpose would stand. Romans 9:11
i don't of any reason that is given for this.
We just have to take what the bible gives to us.
What we do know for sure is your first statemetn....Esau easily gave up his birthright.
Not a good sign for a future leader.
Jacob was a good leader for the 12 tribes.
Again, if we take what the Bible says, we must admit that the Bible doesn't say anything about Jacob's leadership. We don't know why God chose Jacob except to say that it wasn't arbitrary. God has plans and purposes that he manifests, but often we can't know why.
Right. I've said this all along.
Jacob made the better leader.
No. You've missed the point entirely. Paul doesn't argue or say that Esau served Jacob because he would be a good leader. Actually, a cursory review of the Genesis account will show that both men were good leaders. The point is, God decided to bless Jacob before the boys were born, indicating that God was not evaluating their performance as leaders or anything else.
but Paul is not trying to teach about Jacob and Esau.
How can you deny this? He says that before the boys were able to do anything bad or good it was said of them "The Older shall serve the younger." This is Paul's teaching about Jacob and Esau. Romans 9:11-12
He's saying that because those that were supposed to have accepted the Messiah in fact did not...
it does not mean that God has failed.
See my answer above.
Consider Ephesians 1:13-14
Here Paul describes his readers as those who once believed the message of the gospel, were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, who was given to them as an ARROBON: The Greek word ἀρραβών (arrabōn) denotes the first payment or first installment of money or goods which serves as a guarantee or pledge for the completion of the transaction.
Here, Paul has removed all contingency because the inheritance is guaranteed by God, who sealed them in Christ with the
arrabon of the Holy Spirit. The question we need to answer is why doesn't God do this for every believer? Why doesn't he give every believer the down payment? According to Paul, some believers are God's possession.
Jacob was chosen to bring about God's redemptive plan.
He guided his people.
God blessed HIM and not Esau because Jacob would cooperate with God's redemptive plan...
Esau could not do this.
Again, this is speculative. Paul doesn't say why he chose Jacob
If you're saying that Jacob was saved and Esau was not...this idea is nowhere to be found in Romans 9.
No. I'm not saying Jacob was saved while Esau was not. Paul is saying that God decided that Esau served his brother Jacob because God planned and purposed this event before the boys were born.
It is not about individual salvation.
Actually, it is. The Jewish objection to Paul's gospel is centered on God's promise to Israel, recorded many places, that when he brought Israel back to the land, he would soften their hearts, circumcise their hearts, grant them "the adoption as sons" and give them the inheritance of Eternal life. They mistakenly believed that, although the adoption as sons belongs to them as a people, God is saving individuals from among their nation instead.
How do YOU think God chose Jacob? or Why?
The text doesn't say.
God as a potter: You surely know that God as potter is referring back to
Jeremiah 18:1.......
I disagree. If Paul was pointing back to an OT passage, he would say so. The analogy in Jeremiah speaks about a potter spoiling the pot he is attempting to make.
In the ancient world, a pot becoming “spoiled” (
ḥāšat) on the wheel didn’t mean the potter messed up. It meant the clay resisted the potter’s shaping. It stiffened, wobbled, collapsed, or refused to take the intended form.
The potter’s response? He doesn’t throw the clay away. He reshapes it into something different.
Paul's analogy is different. In his analogy, the pots become exactly what the potter intended, a pot for honorable use or a pot for dishonorable use.
Misrepresenting the OSAS position (Strawman)
Misunderstanding the argument around the verse
Dismissing a legitimate theological question
Emotional reasoning instead of argument
Oversimplifying Christian disagreement
In short:
