CadyandZoe
Well-Known Member
You're confused. I make claims, yes. And in subsequent posts, make short, summary statements alluding to claims I already defended.How so? All you do is make claims and do nothing to explain what you mean or back up your claims. How can I possibly take you seriously when that is the case?
Why do you use an appellation, "spiritual Israel", that by it's very nature indicates replacement? Why not use a neutral term from the Bible itself like "Eklesia," or "Church", or "the fulness", [which is the term that Paul uses.]
You know, I'm trying to get you to study the passage instead of using it as a proof text. I was hoping you would. Well, let me explain how I see it and demonstrate an abbreviated example of my hermeneutical technique.Which rhetorical question are you referring to? Can you please try to be more specific when talking to me so that I don't have to try to guess as to what you're talking about?
Consider the book of Romans as a whole and ask, why did Paul spend so much time writing this epistle to the Romans? Answer: It happened that all Christian believers were ordered to leave the city of Rome. Christianity was becoming a problem with Rome because Christians refused to worship the Roman Gods. Later, after a new emperor came to power, Christians were allowed to return to Rome. Paul was unable to visit Rome to encourage believers and answer various objections to the gospel they were hearing from Jewish objectors. So he decided to write a letter.
Paul spends the first four chapters teaching the core gospel, summarizing the gospel in chapter 5. Beginning in chapter 6, Paul begins to answer objections to the gospel, which his readers might encounter. His rhetorical structure comes as a series of rhetorical questions, which he then answers. The question typically follows this pattern, "What are we saying then . . . X? May it never be!" For example, chapter 6 begins, "What are we saying then, shall we continue in sin that Grace might abound? May in never be."
Paul doesn't stop answering objections to the gospel until chapter 12. Paul continues to defend his gospel in Chapter 9. What is the objection he addresses there? Can you see it? He sets it up for us.
If his rhetorical pattern held he would have asked, "What are we saying then, has the word of God failed? May it never be." What follows is Paul's answer as to how the word of God hasn't failed.
Now, we can test our interpretation of this passage by comparing our interpretation with the implied question. What particular promise does the gospel of grace potentially threaten, such that it requires special attention from Paul?
As I said, Paul sets up the problem in the first five verses. He grants that the adoption as sons BELONGS to his kinsmen of the flesh. It doesn't belong to anyone else. This is key, the adoption as sons belongs to his kinsmen of the flesh. By virtue of their birth, Paul says, God promised to give them the adoption as sons. I've said it three times for emphasis. The subject of Romans 9 is a promise God made to Jacob and his progeny. his people.
To rephrase the question in light of the first five verses, let's state it this way. "What are we saying then, Did God fail to keep a promise he made to my kinsmen of the flesh?"
The answer is NOT: God is saving all the spiritual children of Abraham. Why? Because, Paul says, salvation a choice God makes, which does NOT depend on a choice we make. An essential feature of salvation is circumcision of the heart and God can circumcise ANYONE he wants at any time he wants. He literally could, if he wished it, circumcise each and every person on the earth right now.
The answer isn't, "God didn't save them because they refused to believe." Why, because God said that he could, anytime he wanted, cause a person to believe. It all comes down to his wishes and his purposes.
So, given this reality, Paul has set out to explain why God is NOT going to cause each and every descendant of Jacob to believe in him. Since he isn't going to do that, then one is right to ask whether God broke a promise to his kinsmen.
If my interpretation of Romans 9:6 doesn't answer the question, then I have work to do.
In my view, the interpretation you hold doesn't answer the implied objection to Paul's gospel. It completely ignores the first five verses.