How Romans 9 Doesn't Support Calvinism

Hi there. I'm Dr. Joel Kco. I am Assistant Professor of Biblical Studies at Northwest Seminary and College, and I'm a Biblical scholar. And this is my channel where I talk about various aspects related to my academic discipline, which is biblical studies. And today, we're going to be looking at a passage that, uh, a lot of people talk to me about all the time, and that I've heard from a lot of others from you, uh, that you want to hear, uh, what does it mean? That's Romans 9. How do we understand Romans 9? UM, what particular theological systems might emerge from Romans 9? How do we get into the nitty-gritty of Romans 9?

And today, we're going to look at Romans 9, particularly with an eye to the Old Testament citations we find in this text. And the Old Testament citations are really going to help us see that this passage is not so much, um, about what I often hear it talked about, which is in relation to kind of Calvinism and that whole theological system, but instead, it's going to be a lot more about, um, the Old Testament story, um, an Old Testament framework, the Old Testament as a guide for what's going on with Israel in Paul's day, and especially in ways that can help Paul to navigate the, um, seeming issue that a lot of Israel is not believing in his day. And so that's what we're going to walk through today. It's, it's going to be an emphasis on the Old Testament's use in Romans 9, which will guide us then into a, what's ultimately going to be not the Calvinistic view of, of this text, um, but into what I think is a closer reading of what's going on here.

I need to caveat everything here and say that I, uh, I'm not a New Testament scholar. I'm a Septuagint scholar by trade, um, though I do a lot of biblical studies overall, and I just, I'm really interested in all the Bible and how to understand it. I came into, uh, the academic, like the actual scholarship side of biblical studies through the New Testament's use of the Old Testament. That's how I got into Septuagint studies in the first place, and so that's really a passion of mine. And I've always been thinking about this, and it really got me even to where I am today, why I ended up going to do, uh, studies in the book of, of Exodus in its Greek version at Oxford, and I have a book on that as well, um, because it really matters to me. This Greek text, this Old Testament, which is being mediated, maybe you don't know this, um, in the New Testament through the Septuagint by and large. So the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament is what we're finding in the New Testament most of the time. Um, I mean, it's all in Greek in the New Testament, um, basically, but it, the version, this kind of Greek version was very popular. And so this, this got me into where I am today.

And I am still very interested, and I thought a lot about Romans 9. I used to be a Calvinist. I used to adhere to that system, and then it was actually this text that, uh, brought me out of it, which is kind of crazy. Uh, yeah, I was just reading Romans 9 and suddenly one day, uh, I read it again and again and again and again, and I realized after looking back at the Old Testament citations, actually, that's what did it. That this isn't about what I thought it was about. It's about something very different.

Okay, so let's talk a little bit about, uh, Paul's use of the Old Testament, especially when it relates to Romans. Because, uh, Romans is, um, I think it's, it's over half of the direct citations from the Old Testament that are in Paul come from Romans. So Romans is a very Old Testament-heavy book. Uh, I have the, the, where is it? The fact, the actual number here, uh, 68 citations from the Old Testament are in Romans, 91 allusions and verbal parallels from the Old Testament Apocrypha. And the majority of those being from what we know is typically the Old Greek Septuagint. There are 28 in the Pentateuch, the latter prophets, we've got 23, 18 times from Isaiah. That is, uh, the writings, we've got 14 times, mostly from the Psalms. And there's allusions and parallels to the Pentateuch, we've got 39 times. I'm getting this, uh, from the UBS, um, Greek edition of the, uh, of the New Testament, as well as from Krüger in 2019. And then the latter prophets, you got 25 times, uh, writings. This is allusions again, uh, and then writings, 32 times. And so there's a lot, there's a lot of stuff going on in Romans when it comes to the Old Testament. So if you don't know your, your Old Testament, if you don't read your Old Testament, you're going to have a hard time with Romans, you really are.

So Paul cares about the Old Testament when it comes to the book of Romans. We need to kind of establish context before we get to Romans 9. And so I'm going to briefly, just briefly, the letter is, in my opinion, and again, I'm giving you one take here. Uh, I, there's kind of a joke that if you'll have three Pauline scholars walk into a room and talk about a text, and you're going to come up with four opinions, because it's just such a diverse field with so many different takes and approaches, even the book of Romans, especially. So please don't think that I'm giving you the, the end-all be-all here. I'm giving you how I understand this text and, um, what makes best sense to me. But there are definitely other ways you could look at it through different harmonical grids and lenses. Uh, I'm bringing you a particular view.

The context in the, in the letter is Paul is, uh, trying to fix some issues with Jew-Gentile relations that seem to be going, um, awry in the church at Rome. And so he's, you'll find at the end, latter half of the letter, there's a lot about Jew and Gentile, um, and there's stuff about food, about eating together, there's stuff about weaker brothers, stronger brothers, and it seems to relate to these, a lot to these dynamics of what's going on. Um, this is a big issue in the first century. How, how do you live as a follower of Jesus? Especially this was a Jewish movement. And so if Jesus is a Jew, and it's a Jewish movement, and once it expands to the Gentiles, people who are not Jewish, what do you do? Um, do you still live by the same Jewish customs? How does the Mosaic law fit into this? How does the Old Testament fit into this? And so Paul's trying to help deal with that.

Um, it seems as though the letter is written predominantly to Gentiles. He addresses the Gentiles specifically, um, quite frequently. There's a big debate, um, as to Paul's focus, whether or not he's really just writing to Gentiles or is there a mixed audience? Um, to what degree is Paul just an apostle to the Gentiles? Um, this is a big debate in New Testament studies right now. I'm not going to get into that. Uh, I think it, it appears to me based on, uh, on the names in chapter 16, that he's, there are Jewish names, Gentile names, and so it does seem like there's a mix of a Jew-Gentile audience. And there are some issues going on. There seem to be either Jewish, uh, Christians or Judaizing Gentiles, so Gentiles who have said they want to throw their law in with Mosaic law, um, in some respects, um, and that if you want to be a Christian, a true Christian, you're going to need to adapt some aspects of the Mosaic, um, Torah, some of the, the legal, uh, issues there within, particularly when it comes to circumcision, when it comes to perhaps Sabbath and food, these kinds of things, uh, which were markers, boundary markers in the first century of who was a Jew and who was not a Jew. Um, and so this is important to them.

Um, Paul is then dealing, giving this letter out to them and helping them, uh, to deal with these, these issues. Jesus, he presents in the beginning, um, right at, right at the start, that, um, the gospel is the power of God for salvation for everyone who believes. For in it, the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith. And so you've got the righteousness of God, and I take that in its Septuagintal usage, and, uh, also its Hebrew Bible usage for that matter, which, what you find in the Psalms, where the righteousness of God, and in, in Isaiah for that matter, it's this, the salvation of God, the righteousness of God is God acting rightly by his covenant. It's him bringing deliverance. It's, it's the, um, saving power of God, and it's revealed now in Jesus. Um, and that's the whole point of it. The righteousness of God has now been revealed apart from the law and the prophets, through faith, um, in Christ, or however you want to translate that. Uh, so it's, it's through Jesus. He is the manifestation of God's saving power, his faithfulness to his covenant, and saving power, um, for all who believe. And, and those who believe can, um, receive justification, to be put in the right with God, um, through Jesus.

And so we find, uh, he discusses all this. He talks about sin. He talks about, um, different aspects related to, to, to Gentile sin, to Jewish sin, to the, the covenant with Abraham. He goes back, there's a lot of that. But then you start to move up towards, uh, Romans 7. And in my opinion, he starts talking about life as an Old Covenant Israelite, an Old Covenant Jew. And, um, in particular, in Romans 7:5, he says, "For when we were in the flesh," and he's now talking, in my opinion, about being pre-Jesus, before this whole Christian thing, before the Spirit came. "For when we were in the flesh," talking as an Israelite, "sinful desires were working through the law in our members to bear fruit for death. But now, but now we have been released from the law because we have died to that by which we were bound, so that we may serve in the newness of the spirit and not in the oldness of the letter of the law." And so he contrasts being in the flesh, this is the old way, um, pre-Jesus, pre-giving of the Spirit, and now in the new way of the Spirit. Um, and so it's really the hopes of Israel that they get that new heart promised in Jeremiah 31, that they would all be taught by God, um, which is Isaiah 54, the, this promise of the eschaton, the time to come when God would make things right, when they, they have a renewed heart, not in the flesh, but in the spirit. And that's Romans 7. And he ends it off saying, "Yeah, and now there's no condemnation for those in Christ," um, because we have the Spirit. And, uh, so if you walk by the Spirit, you will fulfill the law. That is, you will have the empowerment to no longer bear fruit for death, as he said, but to be, to be actually living out the embodied Torah, to actually live as a just, right, in right relationship person with God. So not only are you forgiven and in right relationship with God, but you now actually are able to fulfill the righteous requirements of the law. And that's what chapter 8 begins with. You're actually living out what the Torah was trying to do in people. And, and so then that's kind of this ultimate climactic chapter we find in, in, in 8. And then it leads into a problem, a dilemma. And now that's where we're going to pick up here. And we're going to be going in-depth. If you haven't noticed yet, we're about to kind of really deep dive here. And so, um, I mean, buckle up, uh, grab some coffee, I don't know, because we're going to, we're going to spend some time here. And, uh, you want it in-depth. I've heard people say they want in-depth, so here we go. We're going in-depth.

So, uh, hopefully you can see this well here. Uh, I've got a verse for you. Yeah, and I want to make sure that, um, we are being pretty precise in what we do. And so I'm going to, uh, kind of walk through this in some detail. I'm not going to cover everything, but in some detail. I've got Greek here, just because, and some of you know Greek, and some of you want to, want to work with Greek, and that's fine, uh, but we're going to kind of walk through some, some really important points that are going to help you. And I've kind of, I've highlighted them here with, with coloring. I'm not going to always do that, but right at the start here, to really set up this argument, you need to know what's going on. And so let's do that. Let's talk a little bit about this. Let's read Romans 9:1-5. And this is what happens after chapter 8. So he's just gone into this big, um, kind of praise of, of God that nothing can separate us from Christ, um, in this new covenant life, and we have this new power of the Spirit. And then he says, "I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying. My conscience bears witness to me in the Holy Spirit that my grief is great and there is constant distress in my heart. For I wish myself to be a cursed from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my fellow countrymen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom belong the adoption and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the law and the temple service and the promises, to whom belong the patriarchs, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen."

So what's going on? Paul, Paul has an issue here. He is kind of distressed. He's got great grief and distress and wishes that he could be cut off from Christ, a cursed from Christ, which is really strong language, if you think about it. Um, that's, uh, really what, uh, he's, he's drawing on a history here. The history being, uh, Moses. So I think what we have here is an echo, and I'm not the only one who thinks this. So this is our first kind of dive into the Old Testament. I think Paul is, uh, trying to give you the picture of Moses on the mountain. This is in chapter 32 of Exodus. And Israel has just sinned with a golden calf. Israel is disbelieving. Israel is being in idolatry among other things. I think, uh, stay tuned for that if you want to read any of my work. And, uh, Moses says, "You know, cut me off, cut me off, and let, um, if, if, if they can't continue on, I'll be separated from the people." And it's this allusion to, to the Exodus narrative, the golden calf narrative. And we're going to see this later on. So already Paul is setting himself up. He's giving echoes. Um, now, this is, there aren't verbal parallels here. Rather, he's, um, thematically setting this up. He's going to cite, uh, Exodus, uh, 34 coming up later on in Romans 9. And so he's also going to cite, uh, a verse related to, uh, Moses talking to Pharaoh. So Exodus is a motif here. And so he's setting himself up as a Moses figure. "I wish that, um, that they could be, that I could be cut off and they could be saved." And these are, who? The question is, who? And this is, this is just so important. You have to get what, what Paul is getting, getting at here. You will not understand this chapter if you don't get this. "For the sake of my brothers, my fellow countrymen according to the flesh." So, according to the flesh, he's talking about biological Israelites, biological people who come from the line of, um, all going all the way back, the lineage of, uh, Jacob, of Israel, going back to Abraham, the, the people group. So this is an ethnic people group. He, that's what he's talking about. They, this ethnic people group, biological Israel, um, he is worried about them because they aren't believing at this time. A lot of them aren't. Not there, of course, there are some, Paul's one, but a majority are not believing. So what's going on? These biological Israelites are not believing. So, no. And then he says, "Who are Israelites, to whom belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants?" So these are, um, he's specifying Israelites. We're going to talk about that term in a minute or two. It's interesting here, he doesn't say Judeans, right? You would think Judeans, and he will say that, he'll use that term later on, but he's actually using a specific term here, uh, and we're going to talk about it. Uh, "Israelites" is a prophetic term. And I'm relying here on the work of, uh, Jason Staples, as well. And so we'll talk about that in a few minutes. That this is, this is a move he's making. He's talking about, uh, this whole group, Israel, as a prophetic entity, what was promised, this, this, this group who received the revelation. Um, and so he's, he's, he's grouping his fellow Israelites in, or fellow Judeans in that camp right now because he's going to make an argument about what is Israel. And notice as well that the Christ is according to the flesh. So Jesus came as a, um, ethnic Jew, a biological Israelite. Okay. So he set this up. They, they have all this stuff, they are the ones, uh, who, who have received this, this promise and all these different aspects, and he's wondering what's happened to them.

Okay, so then he goes into a bit of a dialogue here where, um, moving to verses 6 to 9, and he's going to answer his own question. So why are these people not believing? What's going on? And he says, "But it's not as if the word of God had failed or has failed." This is an important, uh, distinction that Paul's going to make here. The crux of the debate is whether God has failed because the majority of Israel, or Jewish people at his time, according to the flesh, do not believe. So that is, biological Israelites. Now, you might ask here, what is the word of God? Some people, you know, in typical Evangelical circles, you're going to hear, "Word of God," oh, that's the Bible. Well, that's not really how it's used in the New Testament. You're going to find that the word of God is not really how they define Bible. They're going to use scripture and other phrases for that. So what does he mean here, the word of God? So I think probably not Bible. Maybe it's the oracles of God, thinking back to, um, the, the chapter 3, which actually shares a lot of similarities with chapter 9, where he's talking about, um, what's the benefit of being a Jew if, um, if many of them are not believing? Um, and so he, he kind of talks about that, and that their unfaithfulness is to show the faithfulness of God, and that God is just in, in doing so, um, and that God is still just despite some unbelief. So there's a lot of parallels between chapter 3 and chapter 9 in that way. Excuse me, I have a bit of a cold.

But Paul uses this phrase for the gospel a lot as well. You can find that throughout his letters. The closest kind of reference, though, is to the Abrahamic line of promise that we're going to find in verse 9. The children, not children of the promise, but the, verse 9, the word of the promise. Here we've got, "for the statement of the promise." It's actually *logos*, the word of promise. So perhaps he's referring to that. Um, but I think the word of God here is just kind of, maybe, yeah, the Abrahamic thing, but it kind of as it's expanded out and referring to the, the, the whole, uh, idea of, um, what God has spoken to Israel in the scriptures and the privileges and what he's just labeled, really. So like all this stuff, this revelation, the revelation that's gone to Israel, um, through God, that's, it hasn't failed. Why hasn't it failed? Why? And also, if, if we consider this to be like, now that revelation as, um, honed in and mediated and, um, crystallized in Christ, as kind of this gospel, this good news, why hasn't that failed despite Israel not believing?

And now in the green here, you'll see it says, "For not all those from Israel are Israel." That's kind of a wooden translation. So what does this mean? That's, that's, it's a pretty, um, perplexing line. It's kind of paradoxical. "Not the ones from Israel are Israel." How can, how could that be? I think it's intentionally kind of like that. It's almost like aoristic. I think that what we need to understand here is that Paul is making a distinction between biological Israel again, and then what actually constitutes, what defines Israel. So "all the ones from Israel," he's talking about again, biological Israel, those who come from Israel, as in those who are born in lineage from Israel, that's not Israel. Now, I don't think he's saying necessarily that there's those biological from Israel, and then there's the secret Israel of faith, that people who are faithful, and that's what true Israel is. I, I don't know if that's what he's saying here. I think he's more getting at, um, it's more, it's more aphoristic, like those who come biologically from Israel, that's not what defines Israel. What's going to define Israel, and that's what he's going to now talk about as he moves on, and he's going to do so very specifically and with reference to the Old Testament. So if you don't understand your Old Testament, you're not going to understand what's going on here.

So what does verse 7 then say? "Nor are they all seed." So the word here is *sperma* in Greek. And I've made this a wooden translation because you might have a different translation that doesn't really pull out what's going on here. "For not all are seed because they are children of Abraham, but in Isaac will your seed be named." That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as seed. What's going on here? This is so important. This is where you could get lost. Often times people will skip over this and not read it and miss what's going on. And you will miss Romans 9 if you can't get this. Okay, in my opinion, he is making a distinction. Paul is making an Old Testament distinction that there is the seed of Abraham, which does not mean the children of Abraham. You can be a child of Abraham, you could have, uh, you can have Isaac or you could have, um, Ishmael. Those are both children of Abraham, but that doesn't mean they're the seed. The seed is a very specific thing and it's a theological concept that comes from the Old Testament. You find the distinction in, I'm going to give you some verses: Genesis 12:7, 13:15-16, 15:5, 18:16, 17:1-14, and 19. The seed, *zera* in Hebrew, is this line through which God will bring his promises and his revelation. And it's really who's going to be Israel, who's going to be the people who receive all the things we just heard earlier on. It's a group that God is going to be working with, but it's not all the children of Abraham. And see what he's doing here. It's not the biology that determined who the seed was. There were other children of Abraham, Ishmael, but, uh, only one was the seed, that is the promised line, the group of people who would receive the revelation. "In Isaac will your seed be named." So it says, that's it. It's not the children of the flesh. So again, biology, remember this term, "of the flesh." We just saw earlier on, here it is again, "of the flesh." So biological, um, determinations are not what makes people the children of God. Now, here I don't think you need to think "children of God" as in saved. That's not how Paul's using this language. The seed, um, are the children of God. Um, so you'll, you'll have actually interchangeable things here. You've got the seed, you've got the children of the promise, um, and children of God. I probably should have put "children of God" in red there. Uh, that is, those who have this revelation, those the people group through which, through whom God is going to be working. That doesn't mean you could, you could be a member of that group, as we see throughout the Old Testament, who doesn't have loyalty to, to the God of Israel. Um, but this is the group that God is working with, and it's not according to biology. Um, because, uh, you would expect in the Old Testament context that Ishmael, the firstborn by, by Hagar, would have, uh, inherited the rights and, um, would have been the child of promise. But that's, that's not true. Instead, we're going to see how Paul interprets his Old Testament and how we, the Old Testament defines Israel. And so not those all who are from Israel are Israel, because what constitutes Israel, and it means it's people with whom God puts the promise on. It is God's prerogative, God's choice, who is what, as what defines Israel. It's not about biology. Um, God can choose a biological people group for sure, but it's not dependent on that. I hope that makes sense, because if you don't understand this motif of the seed being not being, uh, uh, the seed being the people of the promise compared to, um, biological children, because he's again, it's an argument about biology versus why has biological Israel not believed? And he's going to go, "Well, because biology doesn't make Israel. Israel is constituted based on God's choice." And this chapter is about God's choice. But it's, what kind of choice are we talking about? It's a choice of who are the people of the promise, who are the children of the promise. And so you'll have different, um, terms that, uh, relating to the children of Abraham here in, uh, in blue, "children of the flesh," you've got the ones from Israel, those who are from Israel, um, my brothers, my fellow kinsmen according to the flesh, children of the flesh, like these are all interchangeable things to get across the same concept of biological, um, Israelites.

This term "Israel," I want to just point to it again, because what, what is he saying here? That what constitutes Israel? And it's a, it's a term that looks back both prophetically, and then it looks back to Israel in the past, and then it also prophetically looking forward. Um, I'm going to read you a quote from Jason Staples' book from 2021, and he's, uh, he's going to be talking about Josephus here. "Josephus transitions the term Judean rather than Israelite in the Persian period when he's recounting Israel's history, reserving Israelite language for the northern tribes of the 12-tribe people as a whole, and thus using those terms only when referring to past people or to the future time when the two tribes are reunited with the entire people of Israel. Thus, rather than being synonymous, listen, the evidence from Josephus suggests the relationship between these terms is partitive, with Jews as a subset of the larger category of Israel." So do you see what he's saying there? That Israel is a prophetic term. It's, it's this, uh, the people who have received the, the promises. Um, and then, uh, Nal is going to talk about, okay, well, now what constitutes this thing, this prophetic reality looking to the future, when, um, all of Israel will be reunited, reunited again, and however Paul is going to define that. So it's a prophetic term, um, in that way. It's also a historical term, but it's also, it's a prophetic term looking to the future. It's more encompassing than just Jew.

Okay, I think we can move to the next verse. Um, I've already talked about the seed promise and what that means. We will see later in the book of, of Romans, especially in chapter 11, that, uh, Paul is not saying that being a biological Israelite means you're not, like that they're not believing or not all of them are believing, because Paul himself, he'll say that, "I say, has God rejected his people?" This is Romans 11:1. "No way! For even I am an Israelite from the seed of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin." And so he's saying, yes, there are biological Israelites believing, but it's those who are now in Christ, those are those who are part of this reconstituted Israel. He even says of, uh, those who are not believing in Christ, he says in 11:24, "How much more will those who are natural branches," that is, biological Israelites who aren't believing, "be grafted into their own olive tree?" So you see what he's doing there? He's saying God has reconstituted Israel. He has made a choice here in Christ. And those who are biological Israelites are actually natural branches, but they're not on the tree right now. See how he's kind of redefined the terms of what it means to constitute Israel?

Okay, so let's, we, we'll get into more of that. Um, if that's not clear, it will become clear, I hope, in time. But let's, let's move to, uh, this, uh, well, actually, let's, you know what, maybe let's stay with this text, because I have promised you a little bit more Old Testament. So let's look at the verse and how that helps us. So he says in verse 7, "There in Isaac will your seed be named." So this is Genesis 21:12. Um, it's pretty much a representation of the Hebrew, what's going on in 21:12 is that there's a dispute over the, the promised people, the people who will receive the revelation. Um, there's, there's a dispute over firstborn status between Ishmael and Isaac as to primogeniture, which is firstborn status. And this is the important point, because this, uh, because a lot of people say, "Oh, Romans 9 is about the sovereignty of God." The answer is yes, it is about the sovereignty of God, but in what way? It's in this way. God sovereignly chooses that Isaac, who's not the firstborn, will be the one whom the Abrahamic promise continues through. And do you see what's happening there? God does make a sovereign choice, and it's, it's not about the firstborn, literal firstborn, biological firstborn, Ishmael, rather, it's going to Isaac. "I have chosen Isaac." So God makes the sovereign choice of Isaac, and that proves Paul's point in Romans 9, because he's saying biology didn't determine this from the get-go. From the get-go, it was about God's choice. Who constitutes the people of Israel? Not biology. It's God's choice. What constitutes Israel?

So I do need to emphasize again here that the line of promise, who is receiving these promises, that's not equivalent to having a relationship with God. In fact, um, of Ishmael, the child who's not chosen for the promised line, it says, "And go," this is Genesis 21:20, "and God was with the boy Ishmael, and he grew and lived in the wilderness." So God was with Ishmael. There's no condemnation of Ishmael here. Um, even in 20:13, it says, "And I will also make the son of the slave woman into a nation, for he is your offspring." So God is actually, and God is really with Hagar as well. Hagar gets a bad, um, uh, she gets hurt in the story of Abraham and Sarah and all their interactions. Hagar, it's a sad story, and God is with them. So this isn't about who's saved, who's not saved. This is about where the locus of God's revelation is, who is the seed. That's what this is about.

Um, interestingly as well, it's like, why does Paul choose this specific, uh, text, Genesis 21:12? So in the context, we have Isaac being born. Uh, Hagar mocks Sarah, and it looks like Ishmael is the rightful heir. He's there with Abraham and Sarah, but then God has Hagar and Ishmael leave. He actually says to leave, and he keeps the seed of Abraham going through Isaac. So God makes a sovereign choice again. Um, so he, God divides the seed in this context, and he sends Ishmael away. That's the context. And so, uh, God made a choice not based on biology, but on his own sovereign prerogative here. So Paul is assuming, you know, the seed theme in Genesis. If you don't know it, you won't understand what's going on. Uh, he actually alludes to this, the seed theme earlier in, uh, Romans, uh, chapter 4:13. And in verse 16, he says, "For for it was not through the, the law that the promise came to Abraham and to his seed, to his seed that he would be the heir of the world, but through the righteousness of faith. On account of this, uh, uh, it was from, it's from faith, uh, that it might be according to grace, to establish the promise to all the seed, not only to the ones from the law, but also to the one from faith." That was kind of a wooden translation, sorry. I'm just reading the Greek text here. Um, and so it's to the seed. So again, the seed idea, the true constituted people of Israel, is what Paul is getting at here.

I want to introduce to you, uh, the concept of *metalepsis* as well, as we talk. *Metalepsis* is a term from Hays, and it's this idea that you read the Old Testament text in light of the New Testament citation, the context of the New Testament citation, and you're supposed to bridge some gaps. You're supposed to create, um, see the meaning intended behind the comparison. Um, and so here, I think potential *metalepsis* is that, uh, Paul is, and this is going to become more apparent as we move on, Paul is putting Israel, current biological Israel, Judeans, in the slot of Ishmael, or is hinting at, like, "Hey, by the way, children of the flesh, aka Ishmael," and then the promised seed, well, who is like Ishmael right now in that God has made a reconstitution or chosen where the locus of his revelation and where his people will be? Well, it's in Jesus now, which leaves biological Israel kind of in this position of Ishmael. And we're going to see that he's going to use kind of these character, um, foils and comparisons, um, in a, uh, implicit manner as he cites the Old Testament going forward. So he's hinting at it here that Israel's like Ishmael right now, in a sense, they're being pushed to the side, or, uh, they are, uh, not on the, the, the olive tree, so to speak.

There's another citation here. It's from Genesis 18:10 and 14. I won't get into the details. This is in verse 9. "At this time I will return, and Sarah will have a son." What's interesting here is that this, the word "time" is really important to Paul. It's just *kairos*, but he'll use this theme like an appointed time, a given time. And he actually combines two, if you read the Greek, and you compare the Septuagint to the, uh, to to Paul's citation, he combines 18:10, Genesis 18:10 and 14. And in this context, he's actually moved back in the narrative from from chapter 21. Uh, so he's moved back in the narrative. And in the context, we're now dealing with before the birth of Isaac. You've got the, uh, the angels coming or Yahweh coming to Abraham and Sarah and telling them that they will have a child before Isaac's born. And then this is, this is right when, uh, Sarah laughs. And then it says, uh, "Then the angel or Yahweh says, 'Is there anything too difficult for Yahweh?'" That comes right before the verse that's cited. And so again, what's the context? He, Paul is citing a verse in the context of disbelief, right? So Sarah is not believing. He could have chosen many verses here, but I think this might be a bit of a jab, since because in Paul's day, um, there's this wonderful thing, "What's too, too difficult for Yahweh?" Something too difficult for Yahweh? This whole new thing that's going on, an impossible thing in Jesus that has happened, and many are scoffing and laughing at it. So it's, uh, I think this verse is intentional as well. He's citing this for a reason, because at that time too, it seemed like, "No way, there's not possible." It's, it's there's a scoffing, a disbelieving, a laughing at what, uh, what God has done and God's choice. So again, I think this idea as well, that, uh, there's a *metalepsis* between Ishmael and, um, and, um, current biological Israel at the time of Paul.

Okay, so hopefully that's somewhat clear to you. Uh, I think that it's probably enough on these verses, and we can now move. So if you've got the seed theme, you're doing great. Keep that up. That's really, really important. So I'm going to move to the next section here. I'm no longer color-coding it because I don't think it's as important. I really wanted you to get that one little bit there, and hopefully everything has been clear to you so far. So let's read this and then we'll continue.

So Paul says, "And not only this, but also when Rebecca, out of one act of either conception or one act of one man, Isaac our forefather, for before they were born or did not do anything good or evil, in order that the according to election plan of God might remain, some kind of wooden translation, not from works, but from the one calling things into existence." I've supplied that. I'll tell you why it was said that the older will serve the younger, just as it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

So there's a lot going on here, and he's going to continue to use the Old Testament to buttress, to support his argument that it's not about biology. Uh, and not only is it not about biology, but he's going to go even further. It's not about anything except for God's choice. What constitutes the seed? So we've got here now the example, moving down a generation to Isaac and Rebecca and then their kids, right? So before, uh, they were born, Jacob or Esau, before they were born or did anything good or evil, in order that according to election plan of God might remain. Now, "election" is a pretty contested term. It's a hot term. Uh, I take election, hopefully, in the sense of the Old Testament, that is, the elect people are, are the people who are chosen for a purpose, people chosen for a task, and that task is to bless the world. Um, "in you all the nations of the world will be blessed." That's God's purpose for Abraham and for his seed. So he is, this is what he's doing with this seed, and he's going to create a people. He's going to create a system of worship, a system of law, a, or at least ways of looking at law, uh, and then that's going to be a light to the nations. Their task is to be a light to the nations. They are a nation of priests. They are elected to a task. And so to be in that group means you are now a part of this task. That's, that's what Israel is going to be. But he's going to, it's, it's again, it's God's choice. So it's, uh, it's, it's his choice who, who constitutes that group.

So before Jacob and Esau did anything evil or good, and not only that, so notice what, um, he, he says that he brings it back in verse 12 here to, to earlier debates in Romans. "Not from works." Now, I take works here to mean to be a shorthand for works of the law, and works of the law to be, uh, not so much, um, like a perfect keeping of the law or something like that. That's not what I think Paul's talking about. He's talking about rather, like legalism, in the sense of, "Here is one or two or three things from, or, or however many from the most Mosaic law, that these are what, if you do these, you really are, uh, uh, in Christ, in, uh, this Jewish movement, that you're actually a covenant person, a faithful covenant member of, uh, God's people. You are righteous in that sense. You are in good standing in the covenant with God." That, that's what he's getting at there. And so he's pushing back and saying that whether you do circumcision, whether you do Sabbath, food, love, because, uh, that stuff does not constitute you as, as, as Israel, uh, or from law, but, but just doing those things does not guarantee you a position as Israel. Israel has always been constituted by God's choice. God's choice. That's what we're establishing here. These verses all establish that God chooses sovereignly what, um, what people group he's working with, and what are the, the parameters of working with that people group. So they didn't do anything, um, but God called into existence, uh, the seed in the line of, uh, Jacob.

And so let's, let's get into this a little bit here. So I've just talked about how, not yet being born, so again, um, primogeniture, not from works, we just talked about that. This idea of the one, the one who calls, the Greek there is specifically, um, *kalo*, and I think it's actually alluding back to Romans 4:17 when it says, "Just as it is written that the father of many nations I have placed you before whom, he believed God, the one making bringing to life the dead and calling, *kalo*, *kai hos*, and that is calling the things not being as being." And I think he's actually referring back to that here. And so God calls into existence what he wants to call into existence, is, is what's going on. I don't know, I don't think this is, um, about calling individuals, uh, into designating individuals as those within Christ. I think he's referring back to again, Romans 4:17.

So we have another citation here. Uh, this is, uh, in Romans 9:12, "The older will serve the younger." That's from Genesis 25:23, uh, from the Septuagint version. It's actually equal to it, exactly matches the Septuagint version. And that reads, "Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples from birth shall be divided, and one people shall be stronger than the other, and the greater will serve the lesser, or the older will serve the younger," is another way you could put it. And this is before Jacob and Esau's birth, and it's God speaking a promise. So again, his choice, what constitutes the people. Notice though, that the verse emphasizes two, in, it, it refers to two individuals, but it emphasizes nations. "Two nations are in your womb." And we're going to see that this is actually talking about people groups. It's not about God, uh, predestining Jacob to be saved and Esau to be damned. That's not what the text is talking about. That's not what the original context of 25:23 is. It says "nations in your womb." That's the verse that's cited. So I mean, you got to think about that again. If you go back to the Old Testament context, this is about nations and people groups broadly. Who constitutes the seed?

This is another astounding choice in the narrative. Jacob is not the firstborn, and he didn't deserve to be the lineage of promise, the seed. Uh, Esau didn't deserve it either. Um, they both kind of suck as people, to be honest. Jacob has a redemption arc, and Esau too, actually. Esau's awesome in the end, running and kissing Jacob. I love it, actually. Jesus alludes to that running and kissing, uh, in the Prodigal Son. So I think at least that when, when the father runs and, and, and takes, grasps the, the younger son and kisses him, I think you're supposed to, uh, have a parallel between similar language is used with, with Jacob and Esau, when Esau runs and kisses, uh, Jacob. And so it's this idea of of deep filial love and forgiveness. So Esau is not a bad guy. He says, not damned necessarily. Um, it's rather, where are the people of promise going, coming through? And God actually puts up with Jacob's terrible way of stealing the birthright, but he, he uses that to, but even before that ever happens, he says it is going to be through Jacob. And it's through the means of his stealing the birthright. So this verse, the, the citation, I, I think it gives validation to God making what might seem to be an arbitrary choice to a, a Jewish

lawke keeping an ethnic lawke keeping Jew or even a judaizer in the first century. Uh, how are the promised people defined and selected?

Um, Paul's interlocutor, his opponent, imaginary or, I mean, he he puts one in to the text, uh, later on in verses 14 and 19, that's going to be what they're arguing against. Uh, that God seemingly made arbitrary choices here. Uh, he's made an unfair choice. He's made a sovereign choice to define the people, reconstitute Israel as he sees fit, the seed as he sees fit. But Paul's saying he's been doing that from the start, not based on biology or works. God can choose how Israel is defined, period.

Now, we need to be careful, uh, in applying Paul's logic. Because just because God chose Jacob, not apart from anything he had done, does not mean that the line does not have responsibilities to God. Again, it's God's sovereign choice how this people group works, who constitutes it, who's going to be in, uh, like, is it going to be ethnic Jews? Is it going to be more than that? And then the parameters itself are also up to him, uh, for what constitutes a faithful member of that body. Uh, so he'll limit, um, that group to a remnant, right? He'll go from all of Israel, like, um, early in the historical narratives of the Old Testament, and then it's going to be, nope, Northern tribes are gone. Now it's going to be the locus of promises is going to be in the, the southern two tribes. And then, uh, that, that same threat of, uh, a remnant choosing, reconstituting what, what Israel is, is found throughout, uh, the Old Testament, right?

Um, even in the story of Moses, which Paul's already alluded to, uh, when Moses offers his life, that is in the context of God saying, I will turn you, one, one Israelite, into the people of God. So he can narrow it down to one if he wants. It's his choice. And then broaden it out again. That's actually kind of what he's done in a sense. Not like, I mean, at one point it was just Jesus as like, the, the faithful Jew. Uh, and, uh, he really has reconstituted thing in one, and then branching it out again. That's, uh, beside the point here. So it's God's choice what he does. Um, it's his own divine prerogative.

We have, um, another potential metalepsis here. So, uh, I'm going to, I'm just reading a quote here from Abasciano from 2011. "Paul appears typologically to assign unbelieving ethnic Israel to the place of Esau, which is what I've been saying about Ishmael as well, right? The elder descendant of Abraham with no natural right to the inheritance of the covenant household, who was sovereignly rejected as the heir of the covenant in favor of the younger descendant who had no natural right to it according to the ancient law of progeniture. Just as Esau despised his birthright and inheritance, carelessly relinquishing it, so ethnic Israel has despised its its inheritance in the Abrahamic promises, carelessly casting it aside by the rejection of Christ, who encompasses all of Israel's privileges and the promises made to her."

So I'm not the only one seeing this kind of intertextual, uh, intertextuality and how, uh, the metaleptic, um, appropriation of these verses for Paul's text. So you have to read behind the text as well. What is Paul? Who is Paul arguing with? What is the, what is the problem? This is not about individual salvation. This is about what constitutes Israel.

There's another citation here. In verse 13, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." Pretty close to the Septuagint version. Uh, actually, yeah, pretty close to the Septuagint version. Um, and Paul's clearly citing that. The original context of that quote, actually, you know, I think I might even have it for you, just because I want you to see it. Is it? Yeah, here we go. I've just given it to you here because I think it's important. So I'll give you the Greek and then the English. There, the original context. Let's read it together. "I have loved you," says Yahweh, "but you say, 'How have you loved us?'" Talking about Jacob. "Is Esau not Jacob's brother?" declares Yahweh. "I have loved Jacob, but Esau I have hated." So that's the citation. "I have made his mountain ranges a desolation and given his inheritance to the jackal of the desert. If Edom says, 'We are shattered, but we will rebuild the ruins,' Yahweh of hosts says, 'This they may build, but I will tear down, and they will be called a territory of wickedness and the people with whom Yahweh is angry forever. Your eyes will see this, and you will say, Yahweh is great beyond the borders of Israel.'"

Now, you might say, "Oh, there, it's clearly talking about them being, uh, damned or them being the unsaved people or something like that." That's, that's not the context here. Um, the context is about looking way down the line. So we're dealing, we go from, uh, before that Jacob and Esau are born, the earliest history, really, of Israel, all the way to the last prophet, right? Like, canonical prophet. Uh, so he's go, he's spanning the history. And then the verse is supposed to tell you about what has happened over the last thousand years. What has happened? Well, Jacob, I have loved. I, as in, I have stayed with Jacob, with the seed promise. I have kept with them. I have been there. I have been their God. They have been my people. And Esau never was brought into that. Uh.

Now, you might think, oh, hate. Oh, that sounds like God despises, um, all, every single Edomite or something like that. No, this is treaty language. The original Hebrew context is treaty language. Love and hate is ancient Near Eastern treaty covenant language. It's technical terminology from ancient Near Eastern covenants. Um, I just cited from, uh, Poling from 1988 there. So the point is that Malachi is defending against those who doubt God's faithfulness to his covenant and the fulfillment of his promises with regard to the covenant. So Israel is, uh, saying like, "You, you haven't been here for us. Like, look how we're doing now." But he's saying, "No, no, no, I have been there the whole time. I have kept this relationship with you, um, all the way through." And so he's, God's saying he's showing like, it, I have chosen what I chose. I stayed with. And the, that which I said constituted Israel, constituted Israel. Again, loving and hating is not language of damnation, salvation. It's, it's language of choosing according to covenantal terms. Jacob is the one that God has chosen to be this people, the seed people. Esau is not. Don't read overly, overly emotive terms into this. That's just not how this is supposed to work. That's not the original Old Testament context. Again, the Old Testament context is what's going to help you here.

And, uh, you should be prepping your mind. If you've been following along with what I'm saying and going, "Oh, wait a sec, is this another metaleptic inference that Esau is becoming, uh, what Israel is in his day?" Um, there's a comparison being made, a subtle comparison. His day, as in Paul's day. So keep, keep your mind there because we're going to see more of that as we move forward. Uh, Edom, at the time of Paul and in the Old Testament, had really become kind of a, uh, a personification of, actually, I'm just going to cite to you from Hillen Patterson, 2008. Became to personify the pride of a self-centered existence. They were allies of the Babylonians in the sack of Jerusalem. They moved into the Negeb after the southern area of, uh, of Israel, after the area was wrested from Judah by the Babylonians. Also occupied Judean villages well into the Persian period. They, they did collapse at some point, but around the time of Malachi's preaching, the Edomite kingdom was in ruins. By 312, the inscriptional evidence indicates that Nabateans and Arabs had overrun the region of Edom, making Petra their capital city. Surviving either moved to Idumea or absorbed by the Nabateans. So, in other words, they're gone. Like they're on their way out. God is not maintaining them as a people group, according to his divine promises. He is not working with them as the light to the nations. Edom is not under that kind of protection and covenant relationship. He hasn't chosen them for that. Israel, Jacob, is chastened in their unbelief, and then they're restored. Edom is not. So it's God's proof to Malachi that he's maintained this relationship. And again, it's his choice to, to keep that despite all the years, the thousand years or so in between. Okay.

So I think that I can move you to, I'm going to move back, back again. Uh, we're not there quite yet. Okay, let's keep that one up for a sec here. Is there anything else I want to say? No, I think we'll move on from there. I've already talked about how Edom was kind of representative of, uh, kind of negative, uh, feelings and, um, stereotypes of kind of unrighteousness later on. And, uh, that does happen. Um, and it really, the focus here is on the fact that Jacob, he maintained this covenant relationship with, and he didn't, the people stayed, whereas Esau, they ended up destroyed. There's more things I could say there. Um, there's stuff in, in the book of Acts where it seems like Edom might be related to, like, Gentiles and to the nations which are not going to be brought in. I won't get into all that right now. Okay, let's move to the next text, just because I am cognizant of time here.

Okay, so we are moving to Romans 9:4-18. Uh, yes. Um, I think I have for you. Let's, let's read this. And then do I have? I think I do. Yeah. Okay, good. That's awesome. I'm glad to have that. Let's read this text first. "What then shall we say? So, okay, God chose is Jacob apart from biology, apart from anything that they chose, their works, uh, they didn't. There's nothing they did. There's no law-keeping system. It is God's choice, his prerogative, just like he chose, uh, Abraham's seed and Isaac. Like, it's the same thing before even the Mosaic law came about, which is an important point, because there are a lot of people who are arguing in Paul's day, you need the Mosaic law. That's what constitutes Israel. No, no, it's before that. God has been doing these choices. So, what shall we say? Is there unrighteousness on God's part? No way. For, for he says to Moses, 'I will have mercy on whomever I want to have mercy, and I will have compassion on whoever I want to have compassion.' So then it is not the one willing, nor the one running, but but of the mercy of God. For the scripture says to Pharaoh, 'that for this very reason I have raised you up, so that I might show my power in you, and so that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.' So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills."

Okay, so this is a really popular verse, but follow the argument. You cannot take this out of context. I have been meticulously for 58 minutes walking you through the Old Testament context. If you take these verses out of context, for sure you can make this about whatever you want to make it about. Make it about a Calvinistic system, make it about predestination. But you are missing the point. You are not reading it in context. Okay, I'm being a bit harsh there, but I just, I hear this cited out of context so often. Keep it in context.

So what do we have? Uh, Paul's going to have a, like, an argument structure going on here based on the Malachi citation. So there's a lot of Greek here. I'm sorry I didn't put it in English. Uh, that's my own foolishness for not doing so. But he's going to take the idea of Jacob I love, the yellow, and then he's going to talk about the idea of being the chosen people, the people through whom the promise is given, and through whom God is going to have this covenant relationship. And then the Esau I hated, people who, who don't have that, um, that relationship, uh, and whom he, uh, yeah, who, who aren't a part of that, that promise. And so you're going to have, uh, a scriptural proof for the first. So for Jacob I loved, he's going to say, "Oh, to Moses, he says, 'I have mercy on whom I have mercy, I have compassion on whom I have compassion.'" So then an inference, the underlining thing there in the Greek, it's not of the one willing, nor of the one running, but of the mercy of God. And then for the Esau I hated, he's going to have a scriptural proof. So it's like a symmetrical text going on here. And he says, "So the scripture says to Pharaoh," so another scripture says, "thing, but for this purpose I've raised you up, so that I might show in you my power, and so that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." So then another inference, underlined to text there, "Whoever he, uh, whoever he desires, he has mercy on, and whoever he desires, he hardens."

Okay, so he's actually now expanding on this Malachi argument, um, that he's just given the Malachi text. And so I just want to show you that, that there's actually more going on here under the hood than you might particular, you might, um, see on the surface. There we go. All right.

So, "What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness on God's part?" So this, "What then shall we say?" is typical of the rhetoric, like the diatribe rhetoric that Paul has developed, uh, earlier in chapter four, six, seven, eight, nine. You find this, um, there's, there's another parallel, um, in Romans 3. "But if our unrighteousness upholds the righteousness of God, what then shall we say?" Right? "What shall we say? Is God, is God unjust to inflict wrath? May it never be so." You see that there's like the parallels. "What shall we say? The unrighteousness. Is there unrighteousness on God's part? No way." So again, Romans 9 and Romans 3 are actually very closely parallel to each other for many ways that I won't get into here. Uh, so Romans 9:14-18, here, defend the righteousness of God in light of his sovereignty and election. In doing so, like 3:3-4, parallel passages in some ways, it shows that God glorifies himself even through human resistance to him, particularly, we're going to see in 9:17, providing a bridge between the ideas of God's sovereignty in election and his righteousness in blaming those who serve his purpose even in the resistance to his will. I was just citing to you from, uh, Abasciano, 2011, I believe it's this monograph.

So what's going on here? I believe I have another slide here because I really wanted to emphasize this. Yes. "Is there unrighteousness on God's part?" What reason? Read this. What reason might God be called unjust in this context? And in this flow of argument, Paul is talking to unbelieving biological Jews. He's deciding that he's saying that the Old Testament shows us that God chooses sovereignly by his choice what constitutes Israel. It's not biology or anything else. So you have a non-believing Jew might take up qualms about God making a new choice concerning which group the seed is, especially because that choice is not informed by works or ancestry. You see what's going on? We're all the way in Romans here. Paul has already talked about Christ being the fulfillment. Here, Christ is what it's all about. The seed is now in Christ. And so if you're a non-believing Jew, biological Jew, you are going to go, "Uh, not fair. You've changed the rules on me, God. You changed the rules on us all here. How is this fair?" That's the person that Paul's arguing with.

So let's go a bit into the text here again, and I'll show you more of that. So he says, "I will have mercy on whoever I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whoever I have compassion." So this is citing again this, uh, Mosaic dialogue, or this dialogue where Moses is with God on the mountain during the golden calf, or after. I think the golden calf is is chapter 34, or sorry, chapter 33:19. And, uh, Moses is debating with God about whether or not God's presence and forgiveness are going to continue after the golden calf. And God says to Moses that, uh, "I can choose however I want here." That's essentially what he's getting at. Um, he's allowed to have mercy on Israel despite their disobedience or not to. Uh, he could have limited it to Moses, like he said he wanted to. But with the intercessory prayer and the mediation of Moses, God says, "Okay, I will, I'll stay with this people. But I want you to know what this phrase means: 'I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, compassion on whom I have compassion.'" This is a formula in Hebrew. It's called the *edem per edem* formula. And what it does is that it indicates that the subject can perform the action in whatever way they see fit. So it's a way of saying that it is up to me how I decide to do this. I can have mercy however I want. I can have compassion however I want. The line is emphasizing God's prerogative in choosing what he does. He can stick with Jacob if he wants to, despite their golden calf and Sabbath violation, in my opinion. But, uh, stay tuned. Uh, and so he, it's up to him to choose what he wants to do there. So it's not, uh, it's not about what someone wills or what the runner, but it depends on the mercy of God. So God can choose to mercy, to stay with a people group if he wants to, despite their unbelief and their, their, their issues. Just like, uh, in, uh, the time of Malachi, Israel and, or Jacob was complaining and a lot of them unfaithful for that matter. He stayed, he's still stuck with that group. It's God's choice which group he is working with and on. Uh, that. So then you go to the other side of things as well. Okay, well, then what about those he's not working with? Uh, actually, before we do that, um, have I covered everything I want here? No, I think I've basically covered what I want. Yeah, that God has brought the seed promise really down to Christ. You see this in Galatians where it says, "And to Abraham it was said, 'The promises,' 'the promises were spoken,' 'to his seed.' It does not say 'to his seeds' plural, but to the one, to his seed, which is Christ.'" So in Paul's sees that, uh, the seed, the, the place of locus and revelation that continued from the time of Abraham all the way down, it found its fulfillment in Christ. And then now it kind of reverberates out into those who are believing, um, biological, uh, Jews, Israelites, and to the Gentiles. So Paul's citation of Exodus 33:19, "I will have mercy," that one, uh, is to support the claim that God is not unrighteous for electing whatever seed he wants on whatever basis he wants. He's made another electing choice where the promise of Abraham resides and finds its fulfillment, and that's in Jesus. That's what I'm trying to get at here. And so notice again that we're alluding back to 9:3 with the citation where Moses offering his life, well, Paul also offering his life, it's all interconnected here. There's a, there's a, a sub-narrative going on with the Old Testament. So the substructure of what's going on here.

Okay, if we move to the next citation to, "The scripture says to Pharaoh, 'For this very reason I have raised you up, so I might show my power in you, and so my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.'" So this is a citation from Exodus 9:16. Moses is confronting Pharaoh. Uh, there's this big, uh, idea, this big theme of God's name being revealed in the book of Exodus in the early chapters. You see it in chapters 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10. And that it relates to God making known that he has redeemed his people. So that God making his name known is a big theme there. Uh, we also see God making, uh, God making his name known to Moses in 33:19. So again, this, this hyperlinking of texts under the surface of God's name being known. He makes his name known to Moses and to his people, but he also makes his name known through people who aren't, uh, who are, who are kicking against the goads, so to speak. And so he, his name will be known, is what he's doing. And he'll use people who are resisting and people who are, uh, uh, even unfaithful in some respects, in, in 33, U, but he makes his name known. It's an important theme that we find this. It's an interesting citation. Uh, this is super nerdy. So if you're not hyper, hyper nerdy like I am, uh, you can tune out for 30 seconds. But the citation for "this very reason I have raised you up," the, the Greek there, *houtos exēgeira*. So the *exēgeira*, interestingly, if you look at the Septuagint, like the old Greek, the earliest translation, you've got *dia touto diēgēseis*. It's not "I raise you up," but "that for this reason you are preserved." But in Romans, you've got "I've raised you up." And you ask, like, why is it different there? It's like Paul using a different translation, maybe a different version. Uh, is Paul translating from the Hebrew? U, maybe. But what's interesting is that the Septuagint that preserved, uh, is probably based on a translation, um, from, uh, that was keeping in mind early Biblical Hebrew. So the Hebrew language changes. There's like an earlier Hebrew, middle, late Hebrew over, like, a thousand years or around there, right? And so it seems like the Septuagint is basing this, "you're preserved," based is based on early Hebrew understanding of what is it? Uh, sorry, sorry, my nose is so congested. Uh, and so "I have caused you to stand" is literally what it is. But in the, original Greek, it's "preserved," because that that term "I've caused you to stand" is the idea of preservation. But later on, it becomes more the idea of raising up. And so it seems as though Paul's either citing from a version that had translated based on late Biblical Hebrew, rather than early Biblical Hebrew, or Paul has made the change himself. So you don't want to read into this a theological point. I don't think it's probably a linguistic thing. And Paul's probably using a common version or something like that. But to say, "Oh, it's not 'you preserve,' but 'I've raised you up,' like that's somehow more sovereign or something like that." I mean, maybe, but it's probably more of a linguistic thing going on here. And nerdy rant. Okay, hopefully that made some sense to someone out there who went, "Oh, wow, that's really interesting."

So now you want to ask the question, uh, especially because Paul's going to, uh, create some lexical, like word-based, uh, connections here. So in 9:17, "for the, that I might show my power in you," you find a parallel in verses 22 and 23 where God "desiring to show," same word, "his power," same word. And so there's a connection. We're going to get to those verses in a minute. But he's, he's making that connection, um, because he's going to broaden this out from Pharaoh and just make it, make it a, a general truism, so to speak. Why? So, who is Pharaoh? If we've been doing a metaleptic inference this whole time, and we've got Ishmael being subtly compared to present-day biological Israel, you've got Esau being compared to present-day biological Israel, and then now you've got Pharaoh, someone who's kicking against the goads, who is what slot is Pharaoh in? He's, he's, he's in the same spot as, like, Paul is making an inference to present-day Israel that they are kicking against the goads, and that God is using them to show his power in all the earth. And we're going to see that in the coming chapters, right? That he's going to, um, put them to, to, to in, in, uh, rebellion, in a hardened state, so that he might, uh, have mercy on the Gentiles. So the, who is Pharaoh? It's, it's an, at this point, I think he's inferring it's the present-day unbelieving biological Israelites.

Now, you might say, "Oh, hardens." Okay, well, "hardens" must mean that he's, uh, sovereignly hardening, um, and that means that they had no choice in such a matter. Uh, I think that you're, that's a misunderstanding of what hardening is in the Old Testament. Um, it's not included in the Old Testament citation here, but that theme of hardening happens throughout the earlier chapters of Exodus. And I think you're supposed to understand the broader context. What does it mean for God to harden someone? Like, where else can we see that God, uh, hardens or hands over people? Um, I think this is the same idea of, uh, what you see in the earlier chapters of Romans. God's wrath that he hands people over to their own devices. People who have rebelled. In Exodus, you see that Pharaoh rebels. And Pharaoh doesn't start off a neutral character, right? Pharaoh starts off a terrible character. Let's do some, uh, culling of the males, right? Like we, uh, or I guess actually, sorry, this would be, that's not exactly correct, but the character of Pharaoh, I should say, there are multiple Pharaohs in, um, in, in the, in the book of Exodus. But we're not dealing with people who are, are good to start. Rather, they are people who are rebelling against God. They are not accepting what God is saying of them. And so there's this, uh, mutual hardening in a sense. Pharaoh hardens his own heart, God hardens Pharaoh. It's, um, like a judicial hardening or something like that, where God, uh, because of somebody's stubbornness, he says, "Fine, then have it your way." And he, he, he lets them, he ratifies that decision and continues to let them be hardened and hardens in that sense. It's judicial. And you see that happening as well with the Jews, because it says there's a partial hardening that has come over Israel, right? That's what's coming in, in chapters to come. Israel are the hardened ones at this point because of their rejection of Jesus and the rejection of the Messiah. They are in the slot of Pharaoh. And so again, this is talking, it's a very specific argument about what constitutes Israel and why biological Israel is not believing at this point in time. Okay, hopefully that makes sense to you. Let's continue into Romans 9:19-22.

And we are wrapping up here. We're getting towards the end. So you've done well if you've got this far. Wow, like, hopefully you've learned something. Thank you for, uh, continuing, and to continue to pay attention wherever you're watching this. Uh, I appreciate that. So he says, "Therefore, you will say to me, 'Why then does he find fault? For who has resisted his will?'" On the contrary, "O man, who are you who answers back to God?" "Well, what does the molded say to the one who molded it? 'Why did you make me like this?'" Or does the potter have no authority over the clay to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for ordinary use? And what if God, wanting to demonstrate his wrath and make known his power, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?" Very popular verse. I used to understand this very differently than I do now. Again, who is the *inut*, who is the combatant here? "Therefore, you," who is the "you"? Will say to me, it is an unbelieving biological Jew. That is where this whole argument has been coming from. They will say, "Why then does he still find fault? For who has resisted his will?" In other words, "You've changed the rules, God. You get to choose what constitutes Israel. You get to choose from the beginning. I've been following the law. I've been keeping the law. I've been doing circumcision, Sabbath, all this stuff. And that now suddenly you get to make a, a prerogative, a divine choice here, and now suddenly I'm a part of the Pharaoh group? How is that fair? How can I resist that?" You see what's going on? I think I know. These are hotly competitive, like a lot of translation stuff here. I get it. This is how I understand the verse, among others, as I should say. So you see that's who's who he's arguing with. That person's going to say that to him. That's not fair that you can just choose one group and over the other arbitrarily. You can do it however you want. You can say you're going to be working with this group and not that group. You can do it apart from biology, apart from works. And so you can understand why someone, a Jew in the first century, would be upset with this. And I'm believing Jew in 9:20. There is, uh, there's a lot of Old Testament going on here. "Well, what does the molded say to the one molding it? Why have you made me thus?" So we're actually looking at a composite text here, probably, uh, a citation. It's not always in your versions that will say, or your New Testament that will say that. Uh, we're probably dealing with, uh, Isaiah 29:16, we're dealing with, uh, Isaiah 45:9, and Job 9:12, perhaps. And I won't get into the details of that because, um, this is already too long. But he seems to be bringing these texts about, um, pots and and potter together. In Isaiah 45:9, uh, is connected to 29:16. So these two verses are connected in Hebrew, and they're even connected in Septuagint manuscripts. And so you, you have to ask the question, who is the clay in the original context? Who is it in Romans 9? And so it's, it's Israel, right? It's, it's Israel. Uh, so if you're an Israelite and suddenly you're, you've got this one lump, right? There's the potter, there's the same lump of vessel that is for honorable and dishonorable use. I got Israel here. Boop. This one is now part of this group. This one is now part of this group. And now you can imagine this group saying, "Why did you make me like this? That's not fair. How am I a part of the wrong group now? What are you doing, God?" That's what's happening in the first century.

"But does the pot not have the right over that lump to make one for honorable use," which is, uh, for the continuation of the seed and the revelation and the people of God's promise, "and then one for ordinary use," one that, or, um, yeah, uh, essentially one that's not in that group, um, or even, you could even say these are like dishonorable, or uses that are, um, not for, like, like this is a bad, probably a bad, uh, way of phrasing it, like, like a piss pot or something, like a, like a pot that's not used for great things or something like that. Um, that might be what he's getting at. I'm not saying it is. So there's two vessels here. And, uh, if you think that pottery doesn't kick back against the potter, you haven't done pottery. Ancient pottery, even modern pottery. I really like what Jason Staples says here. I can't remember the title of the article, but he basically talks about how clay does kick back against a potter. And then you can choose to go, okay, well, I'm going to make this into something else. And so this is not a, uh, a context in which there is no volition on the part of the pot, the clay, I should say. That's actually very common that clay would kick back against the potter. In the context of Isaiah 28, 29, which Paul is alluding to here, it's in which Israel doubts God's wisdom and power to save them, trusting instead in their own schemes for deliverance. In Isaiah 45, and likewise involves a disputation between God and his people. Once again, the issue revolves around Israel's persistent questioning. Listen, Israel's persistent questioning of God's wisdom and power to save them. Both of these Isaianic passages set the clay, clay's challenge to the potter, in the context of Israel's confrontation with God over his chosen means of redemption. I'm going to say that last part again. That's from Wagner, 2003. "Both of these Isaianic passages set the clay's challenge to the potter in the context of Israel's confrontation with God over his chosen means of redemption." What is going on in Romans? What is God's? What is the problem? God's chosen means of redemption. He has made it about Christ. Israel is constituted in Christ. He has redeemed in Christ. And now the pottery is kicking back. Part of Israel, part of the lump, God is dividing, has divided, and it's kicking back and saying, "I don't like how you've done things. Why do you find fault? Who can resist his will? Why did you make me like this?" The, the Old Testament context in Isaiah is saying this is Israel saying, "I don't like the way you've done things, God. I don't like the choice you've made." We find, uh, similar reflections on Isaiah 29 and 45 in the Dead Sea Scrolls. 1QSa 11:22: "What can clay, what can clay and that which is shaped by hand dispute, and what does it understand in order to give counsel?" So they're reflecting as well on the, the clay, questioning God. If you read Jeremiah 18:1-12, especially verses 7 and 8, you'll see that, um, this idea of the clay and the clay having a voice in what's being said and in their own rebellion, for that matter. Uh, yeah. We also see a connection in the Targums. Isaiah 29, uh, or sorry, Targum Isaiah 29:6a, Targum Jeremiah 18:6b connect, uh, the passages, uh, that we're talking about as well. So these are, well, the people are well acquainted with these passages in the first century context and beyond.

So I've already said, who is the lump? Well, the lump is, it's, uh, Israel. He's made a, a choice to continue the promises of Abraham in Christ. And those who are in Christ, unbelieving Israel is suddenly, de facto, outside of the children of promise, right? Okay, then. So then, "What if God, wanting to demonstrate his wrath and to make known his power, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?" So there's different ways of translating this verse. There's like a *cal a homer*, like if God put up with Pharaoh, then how much more will he be patient with with Israel? There's an *a fortiori*, if God has endured rebellion, then how much is he not doing that at the present time? Like, even, uh, there's other ways as well. I won't go into them. It's a bit of a difficult verse. But let's focus on what's kind of more clear. "What if God wanted to demonstrate his wrath and make known his power?" We already looked at, uh, demonstrating power is what he connected to Pharaoh there. There's this, he's connecting these together. This is relating back to the Pharaoh idea. And he's enduring these vessels of wrath, prepared for destruction, prepared to be thrown out, essentially. Pharaoh is in the slot, or Israel is in the slot, or unbelieving Israel at the time of Paul is in the slot of Pharaoh. And so he's now talking again about the divided lump, Israel, unbelieving, that made for vessels of wrath, prepared for destruction. And then those in Christ. He's not saying individual human beings who are, uh, you are made into a vessel for wrath, nothing you can do about it, too bad, no. He's talking about groups here. He's divided Israel, believing and unbelieving. How you get in those groups is by faith. Or sorry, how you get into the group with Christ is by faith in Christ. Um, this has nothing to do with human volition in that sense. How you are in or out of the group is by one's own, um, volition, just like the clay can kick back or not kick back. That's, and, and I mean, we even see Paul use the same imagery in Timothy. If you don't want to be a vessel, an honorable or a dishonorable vessel, then make yourself, cleanse yourself to become an honorable vessel. Like that, that, you don't want to push this into the, to the individual realm of volition or something like that. It's not what it's about. It's about true reconstituted Israel, and then the group that's not that, not in Christ. And then how you get in is by faith, Gentile or Jew, in Christ. That's what's going on. Uh, don't, don't dissociate it from its Old Testament context and from the flow of argument that Paul has established thus far. "Vessels of wrath." We also see in Jeremiah 27:25, if you look at the Septuagint, that he has borne vessels of wrath, which are nations. So again, vessels of wrath, nations, people groups, not individuals. Here, we're not talking about that. Talking about people groups. And then Romans 9:22, you see the same language of, um, Pharaoh, which is the Greek, so not Pharaoh the, from Egypt, but Pharaoh, the Greek verb, with vessels of wrath, *skeuos* or *geus*, you see the same thing. So Jeremiah 27:25 and Romans 9:22. So Paul's drawing on that kind of language.

What's he do? And what else now? He, so he, he does, he bears with patience these, those who are unbelieving, who are rejecting, pushing against, so that in order that he could make known the riches of his glory upon me, vessels of mercy that he prepared beforehand for glory. So he's preparing beforehand, not in the sense of individuals being predestined to salvation and being picked out arbitrarily or by some decree. Rather, this group, the lump, has been split. This one honorable, you lump, that one. He's preparing them for glory. These are vessels of mercy. They're the ones whom he has chosen to have mercy by a sovereign choice in Christ now, and they're going towards glory. That's what he's preparing. He's preparing them for glory. "Us whom he called, not only from the Jews, but also from the Gentiles." Notice the language switch. Not Israelite Jews. So now he's historically, he's bringing it back to his current history. It's not prophetic Israel anymore. Now we're just looking at the, the, the current reality, which is that Jews are coming, are, are, uh, designated, uh, in Christ, called, can be also translated designated or something like that, or those, those within those who, who are within this group, they are the Jews and the Gentiles. And so the vessels of mercy, uh, are constituted by both Jews and Gentiles. Does that make sense? And he's going to use the Old Testament to support that in a really interesting way. And we're about to wrap up because I realize this is incredibly long, but I hope it's been helpful to you. Um, I really like talking about this. I think it's a really important, uh, set of texts.

Okay, so he did, uh, as, as he also says in Hosea, "I will call those who are not my people 'my people,' and those who are not loved 'loved.'" And it will be in the place where it was said to them, "You are not my people," they will be called "sons of the living God." So in the, the original context in Hosea here, so we're asking as well, how, how is Paul, how does this make sense? How is this verse connecting with what Paul's saying? That's really important. In the original context of Hosea, Israel is condemned to exile. And there's like a reversal of the formula: "I will be your, you will be my people, and I will be your God." It's now, "You will, you will," uh, yeah. So "I will call those who are not my people my people, and those who are not loved, loved." So it's like those who weren't that become that again. Uh, it's, uh, followed immediately after this citation from Hosea. It's, uh, 1:10 and 2:1, just so you know. It's followed by a, uh, return from the exile. If, if you look at the, the Greek translation, Septuagint, and they, the, the sons of Judah and the sons of Israel, uh, will be, will be gathered together, and they will place over themselves one head, and they will, uh, go up from the land. And so that's Hosea 1:11, if you want to look at that in the Greek translation. And so this idea of reconstituted Israel. And so in the time of Hosea, we've got, uh, God, um, essentially rejecting, uh, his people, rejecting, uh, the, like, the, the Northern tribes, and so they're going to be gone. Um, and it's going to be, it's going to be just the Southern tribes. And it's, it's, it's a pretty bleak time. Israel gets portrayed as, uh, becoming like a pre-sin people again, almost like Gentiles, actually. It's, it's interesting. And later he says, "Therefore, look, I am going to allure her and bring her into the desert, and there she will respond as in the days of her youth, just as the days of her coming out of the land of Egypt." So he's going to make Israel, uh, pre-Mosaic, almost, which is an interesting thing because of what I think he's doing with this text, which is, I think he's, he's doing a *narti* application of Hosea. Um, and so there are a lot of ways, a lot of ways this text is taken. And I just need to be clear with you that I am just taking one view here. How does Paul cite this text? Does he violate the Old Testament context? Because it's originally about Israel. Um, the text does not talk about Gentiles initially. It seems here to be talking about applying it to Gentiles. So from the Gentiles, he says in Hosea, "I will call those who are not my people," which is Gentiles, I think. Is this again, is this going running against the Old Testament context? Is Paul being a bad scribe here? Is this like a principle being carried over? Like, "Oh, like God once, uh, rejected his people, then brought them back in. Just so, in a similar way, by analogy, he rejected the Gentiles and brought them in?" Maybe. I actually think something else is going on here. Um, again, I really like Jason Staples' work on this. What happens in Hosea after to Israel? What happens to Israel? Where do they go? For 700 years to exile, they become the nations, right? Yet Hosea says that he's going to return Israel and Judah together. So I think what's going on is that the Gentiles coming in is the fulfillment of Israel coming back, because the Gen, Israel became the nations, they were gone, they're no longer a part of the seed. But then God says, "I'm going to bring them back." And he does bring them back by means of the Gentiles. And so I think in this text, Hosea, he's not actually arbitrarily applying the spurs to the Gentiles or out of context, but rather he's looking at the, the, the whole span of Israelite history and going, "Ah, here we go. The, the, the Northern tribes have come back through by means of the Gentiles." That's one way of looking at it. Could be the principal interpretation as well. That's fine as well. But the main point is that in Christ now, Israel is reconstituted.

I hope this has made sense to you. Um, I've been trying to draw out the, the Old Testament and the use of the Old Testament in Romans 9 and how that helps us understand what's actually going on. If you follow the Old Testament citations, it's going to lead you to an interpretation that might not be what you're used to. I've tried to walk you through that and help you understand that. Uh, I recognize I said a lot of things here. If you followed with me, I'm wondering, did, did you see what I saw here? Does it make sense to you? Does this change the way you view Romans 9? Uh, I think this makes a lot more sense of what's going on in Romans, especially as Paul's about to go into, uh, what's going to happen with hardened Israel now, and the, the lump being divided, and what's going to happen, uh, going forward. And that's the really the thrust of chapters, uh, 10 and 11. And it's still answering the question that he set out to answer at the beginning of Romans 9, which is, uh, "What has the word of God failed?" "Why are my biological brothers according to the flesh not believing?" And I think he answers it using the Old Testament to say that Israel has never been defined by biology in the sense that God chooses what constitutes Israel. Will he work with a people group, an ethnic people group? For sure. But he can make that not ten. He can remove ten tribes from that. He can make it down to one person of that, of that group if he wants to. And then reconstitute it and bring it out to a fresh new group of people within the group. Um, so his promise hasn't failed to Israel. Rather, he's just made another sovereign choice. And this time now to constitute Israel in Christ. And that creates the lump. And it creates animosity. Someone who will say, "Why does he find fault? Who can resist his will?" And, "Why have you made me like this?" If you're an unbelieving biological Israelite in the first century. And so he's answering those questions. These are really important questions. Um, and it's a really important debate in the first century. And so I hope this has helped make, help you understand what's going on in this text and to see how much Paul was, um, focused on, uh, Jesus being the locus of the seed promise, uh, that continued, that started way back in the time of Abraham. Um, and, and, yeah, it's really the Old Testament narrative of the promised people of God. How you get into that group is by faith. That's the whole start of Romans. It's, it's, uh, like I said at the beginning, "The gospel is the power of God for salvation for everyone who has faith, gives allegiance to Jesus." For in it, the righteousness of God is revealed from one act of faith to another act of faith. Um, God's saving power is available now apart from the law and the prophets, though they bear witness to it. It's the power, it's the salvation of God, um, to everyone who believes. Um, so this is, this is how I understand the, this text. I hope this has been helpful to you. If you have any questions, please let me know. Um, I hope, I hope to, um, cover more of this, or we could chat more about this in the future. Um, but for now, thanks so much for, for watching this, and I hope it's been informative.