Triggered, yet? Let’s interpret the passage.
Romans 9
9 I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost,
2 That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart.
3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh
Here, we see Paul set the context. This is about his kinsmen according to the flesh. That is PHYSICAL FLESH. Not spiritual. Who are his “kinsmen according to the flesh”? His family? We see who it is in the next verses.
4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;
5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.
So Paul clarifies who the kinsmen are, Israelites, those born from the nation Israel according to the physical FLESH.
Chapter Context: physical, flesh, national, corporate Israel (hence context is not spiritual, not individual, not Church)
6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
Some would say this passage means Gentiles can be Jews or Israel. Not at all. The strict literal interpretation is that not all Israel, is of Israel. It doesn’t mean Gentiles are added into Israel. It just means not all Israel are Israel. Grafting the branches is not the same as a biological change. Neither is “there is no male or female, Jew or Greek, in Christ” mean Gentiles can turn into Jews in salvation (as much as you can turn into a third gender, again no male or female…).
Deductive/Literal Interpretation: Not all Israel are Israel therefore not all Israel are Israel (in context)
Inductive Interpretation: Not all Israel are Israel therefore Christians can be Israel, even though Christians aren’t mentioned at all in the passage (Calvinistic; out of context for additional element)
9 For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son.
10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;
This talks about two individuals in Israel’s history, Sarah and Rebecca, conforming to the context. What is the promise in context? The national promise of Israel. This part is ignored by Calvinists.
Deductive/Literal Interpretation: The word of promise is about the nation of Israel (in context, and cross referenced in Genesis)
Inductive Interpretation: Either ignored or made about salvation, which is not mentioned at all in the passage (Calvinistic; out of context for additional element)
11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)
12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
Here is where Calvinists usually quote first from Romans 9, skipping 1-10 most of the time.
But what is the purpose according to context? The NATIONAL PROMISE OF ISRAEL. Not salvation. God is calling one of them to be a nation, and one of them not to be the chosen nation.
Before someone would say it is clearly talking about individuals, they are individuals, but they are also nations, and in-context, nation is the better implication.
Genesis 25:23
23 And the Lord said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger.
Deductive/Literal Interpretation: The purpose of God and election of God is national Israel being chosen
God gave the national promise to Jacob/Israel and not given to Esau/Edom as nations (in-context and cross referenced with Genesis)
Inductive Interpretation: The purpose of God and election of God is salvation
God (individually) loved Jacob as he is elect and God hated Esau because he is non-elect in the eternal past (Calvinistic; out of context for additional elements)
14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
So this makes more sense. God choosing Jacob as national Israel for just the national promise is not unrighteous.
However, Calvinism implies that God chose Jacob for salvation, which is not the context, and where they err. The promise has nothing to do with individual salvation, but national, corporate promise.
Notice also it talks about Moses, a figure in whose history? Israel.
Deductive/Literal Interpretation: God is not unrighteous for choosing a corporate nation for Himself (in-context and cross referenced with Genesis)
Inductive Interpretation: God is not unrighteous for choosing an individual for salvation (Calvinistic; out of context for additional elements)
17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
In context, this means God’s will was to make Israel a nation, and Pharaoh was his tool to make Israel a nation. It does not mean God raised Pharaoh for the sole purpose of being unmerciful to Pharaoh.
Cross referencing Exodus, Pharaoh hardened himself first before God hardened Pharaoh.
Also, hardening came from the plagues, it wasn’t an instant hardening which Calvinists imply. The plagues God sent is what hardened Pharaoh.
Deductive/Literal Interpretation: God raised Pharaoh for the purpose of releasing Israel as a nation(in-context and cross referenced with Exodus)
Inductive Interpretation: God raised Pharaoh specifically and individually so that God would just be unmerciful and hardeneth on Pharaoh just for kicks (Calvinistic; out of context for additional elements)
21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
Sort of minor note, but both man and God can harden, and also man may make himself a vessel of honour. Calvinists imply it is only God that can make vessels.
2 Timothy 2:20-22
20 But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour.
21 If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master’s use, and prepared unto every good work.
22 Flee also youthful lusts: but follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart.
22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
Note about these verses.
It is a question, not a statement.
It is not just a question, it is a “What if” question.
You can’t make doctrinal statements out of questions!
Shortened version: What if God was willing to show his wrath to the Jews and also the Gentiles?
If you ask, What if I was a girl? Does that mean you are a girl?
No. It means you are the opposite.
In other words, what God is is the opposite of the question.
Deductive/Literal Interpretation: God is asking a “what if” question, and is not making a doctrinal statement (in-context)
Inductive Interpretation: God is making a doctrinal statement about Himself (Calvinistic; out of context for wrong grammar)
25 As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.
26 And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.
27 Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:
Again, repeating the context of Israel as the main purpose of the chapter. These following passages are usualy ignored by Calvinists, but in the wider context, supports the physical Israel context.
28 For he will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth.
29 And as Esaias said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha.
30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.
31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
A contrast between (physical) law for Israel and (spiritual) faith for Gentiles. Thus further underlying that the chapter is not about the Gentiles, but physical, flesh israel.
32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;
33 As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
Again, contrast between faith and law.
