Resources

• Romans overview (video): Part 1, Part 2
• Romans is structured as follows:
  • Books 1-4: Revealing God’s Righteousness
  • Books 5-8: Creating a New Humanity
  • Books 9-11: Fulfilling God’s Promise to Israel (Past/Present/Future)
  • Books 12-16: Unifying the Church

Romans 9: Fulfilling God’s Promise to Israel (Past)

• Romans 9 Reading Guide
• Romans 9 Teaching Notes (PDF)
• Romans 9 Video

Context

• Romans 9 finds Paul heartbroken that his people, the Jews, have rejected Christ.
• Paul insists that God will keep His promises to Israel, but that not everyone born to Israel is truly Israel.
  • God will show mercy to whomever He wishes, calling out His people from both the Jews and the Gentiles to faith in Christ.
• If God is faithful to his promises, why haven’t most Jews accepted Jesus, the Messiah?

• A drastic change of attitude occurs between chapter 8 and chapter 9.
  • Chapters 9–11 deal with the basis of salvation, the electing purpose of God, and the faithlessness of unbelieving Israel versus the faithfulness of YHWH!
  • Chapter 9 is one of the strongest NT passages on God’s sovereignty (the other is Eph. 1:3–14)
  • Chapters 9:30–33 provides a summary of chapter 9 and the establishes the theme of chapter 10.

• Romans 9 is a complex passage that has been debated for centuries. Here’s a breakdown of two viewpoints:
  
  • Staunch Calvinistic View:
    • Predestination: God has eternally chosen some for salvation (the elect) and others for reprobation (those not chosen). This choice is based solely on God’s will, not on any foreseen merit or actions of the individuals.
    • Sovereignty of God: God has absolute control over everything, including the hardening of hearts (e.g., Pharaoh) to display His power and justice.
    • Verses Highlighted: (9:11-13, 9:16-18, 9:21)
  • Free Will Christian View:
    • Corporate Election: God chose Israel as His special people, not individuals for salvation. This choice was based on their potential to carry out His plan for the Messiah.
    • Conditional Hardening: God allows hearts to harden as a consequence of rejecting Him, not as a forced action.
    • Human Responsibility: People have a genuine choice to respond to God’s grace. This free will allows for genuine faith and the possibility of anyone coming to Christ (e.g., Gentiles attaining righteousness).
    • Verses Highlighted: (9:24-26, 9:30-33)

• Key Points of Contention:
  • Meaning of “vessels of wrath and mercy”: Calvinists see these as predetermined groups, while free will proponents see them as consequences of choices made.
  • Jacob and Esau: Calvinists see this as an illustration of predestination, while free will proponents see it as God’s plan for the nation of Israel.

• Both viewpoints acknowledge God’s sovereignty and human responsibility to some degree. There are additional interpretations of Romans 9 beyond these two.

• For a Calvinistic perspective, you could look at resources from John Piper or R.C. Sproul.
• For a free will perspective, resources from Norman Geisler or William Lane Craig might be helpful.

Here are some key points:

• God’s Promises Haven’t Failed
  • Despite Israel’s rejection of Jesus, God remains true to his word. However, not all ethnic Israelites are the true Israel (v.6).
• Sovereignty of God’s Grace
  • God has the right to choose whom he shows mercy to (v.18). He uses illustrations from Israel’s history (e.g., Rebekah’s twins) to show his freedom to choose (v.10-13).
• Election Based on Faith, Not Ethnicity
  • Being a descendant of Abraham doesn’t guarantee salvation; it’s about faith (v.6-8). God can call people from anywhere (Jews and Gentiles) based on his purpose (v.24-25).
  • God’s choice of who is included in His plan (often referred to as “election”) is not based on ethnicity, but on faith.
    • • Jacob and Esau: Paul uses the story of Rebekah’s twins, Jacob and Esau, as a key example (v.10-13). Even before they were born and hadn’t done anything good or bad, God chose Jacob. This emphasizes God’s sovereign choice, not based on their actions or ethnicity (both were descendants of Abraham).
      • Not All Israel is Israel: Paul clarifies that not everyone descended from Abraham is part of the true Israel, the people of God (v.6-8). It’s about faith, not just physical lineage.
      • Gentiles Included: Romans 9 and 11 together show that God’s plan isn’t limited to Israel. He can call and include people of faith from anywhere, even Gentiles who weren’t part of the Abrahamic covenant (v.24-26).
        Here’s a deeper look:
  • Imagine God is inviting people to a banquet (His salvation plan).
    • Being a descendant of Abraham might get your name on the invitation list, but it doesn’t guarantee a seat.
    • The deciding factor is whether you accept the invitation (have faith) or not.

• Romans 9 explains that God’s plan of salvation unfolds according to his will, not because of human merit.
  • While it upset Paul that many Jews rejected Jesus, he affirms God’s faithfulness and his plan to include both Jews and Gentiles in his salvation.

Notes from the video

• The next three chapters focus on the following:
  • Chapter 9 focuses on Israel’s past election
    • Election means historically how they were chosen by God.
    • Analogy: an invite was sent to all people to attend a wedding but not everyone accepts the invitation and goes.
    • Just because you’re a child of Isaac it doesn’t mean you’re a chosen one of God
    • This is compared to Esau and Jacob. Jacob was not perfect but God brought the promise through him. Esau was also not perfect and was not chosen.
    • Calvinists see this as an illustration of predestination, while free will proponents see it as God’s plan for the nation of Israel.
  • Chapter 10 focuses on Israel’s present rejection of Jesus
  • Chapter 11 focuses on Israel’s future restoration when the messiah comes.
• At the end of Chapter 8 it talks about God having a purpose for believers and nothing can separate His people from His love.
  • So what to do about the Jews who don’t believe in Christ was the messiah?
  • When God says something He means it.
• The first 13 verses of Chapter 9 focus on God’s faithfulness
  • v1: God speaks the truth and never lies
  • v2: Paul has intense sorrow and anguish over the Jews not believing in Christ
  • v3: Paul compares being cutoff from Jesus to being cursed. Paul offers to give up his salvation to save the Jews.
  • v4-5: Paul describes the Jews and explains the messiah came from them.
    •  theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises
    • the promises are going to continue
    • Romans 9:5 makes it clear that Jesus is God:
      • ‘Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen. ‘
  • v6-13: Paul explains how the Jews are the descendents of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Israel is God’s first born son. They are His favored people.
    • God’s word has not failed.
    • God’s chosen people are from Israel but not everyone in Israel is part of His chosen people. Not everyone in Israel is part of God’s plan.
      • ‘In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring.’ (Romans 9:8)
• Paul compares the situation to Jacob and Easu where Jacob was the favored son. This is based upon God’s righteousness.
  • God shows mercy to those He wants to and hardens those whom He chooses.
  • ‘For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” ‘ (Romans 9:17)
• God patiently waited to show His wrath:
  • ‘What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? ‘ (Romans 9:22-24)
• Because of God’s fathfulness, righteousness, and justice – you will see God’s grace,
  • ‘Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: “Though the number of the Israelites be like the sand by the sea, only the remnant will be saved. For the Lord will carry out his sentence on earth with speed and finality.” ‘ (Romans 9:27-28)
• Jesus is the stone in Romans 9:33:
  • ‘As it is written: “See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes people to stumble and a rock that makes them fall, and the one who believes in him will never be put to shame.”’

Summary

• Jewish leaders witnessed Jesus performing many miracles yet still didn’t believe He was the Son of God.
• This is still true for the majority of the Jewish people today.
• Isiah 53:4-6 in the Old Testament (Jewish Torah) provided evidence that Jesus was the messiah but Jews to this day still do not acknowledge it.

I shared a news story on our Slack group earlier in the morning. The story explained how German researchers have decoded the earliest known copy of the Gospel of Thomas, an apocryphal book detailing Jesus’ life as a child.

We spent so much time chatting about the Apocrypha and Gnostic gospels that we didn’t have time to watch the Romans 9 video and discuss the chapter. We will discuss Romans 9 next week.

Group Chat and Additional Notes

• Brief discussion of this the story:
  • German researchers decode earliest known written record of Jesus’ childhood
    German researchers say they have decoded the earliest known copy of the Gospel of Thomas, an apocryphal book detailing Jesus’ life as a child.
    • This document is long known to church history, and it was declared heretical all the way back to the times when the books of the Bible were being affirmed.It’s unfortunate that the secular world places so much emphasis on this. But they do it just because it is anti-Christian and it is a tool of the devil to divert weak Christians and potential seekers away from the true word of God.
      • There are many documents in history that have been clearly determined to be frauds, corrupted by heretical teaching, or simply heretical in whole.
      • Here are some reasons why some gospels weren’t included in the New Testament:
        • Different Christology: These gospels might have portrayed Jesus differently than the eventually accepted view.  For example, some Gnostic gospels presented a more spiritual Jesus, while others emphasized a more earthly Jesus.
        • Date of authorship: Early dating of some gospels was challenged. The Gospels included in the New Testament were believed to be written by disciples or close associates of Jesus, lending them authority.
        • Content: Some gospels contained fantastical elements or teachings that contradicted those seen as central to Christianity.
      • These Gospels (e.g., Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Mary) emerged from a belief system called Gnosticism.  They emphasized hidden knowledge and a more spiritual understanding of Jesus and salvation.
      • Gospel of Marcion: This gospel heavily edited existing Gospels, removing references to the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) and portraying God differently.
    • We all need to know that in the initial canon they excluded even books like Hebrews, Peter and many more.
  • The Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox churches include some or all of the same texts within the body of their version of the Old Testament, with Catholics terming them deuterocanonical books
  • Traditional 80-book Protestant Bibles include fourteen books in an intertestamental section between the Old Testament and New Testament called the Apocrypha, deeming these useful for instruction, but non-canonical.
  • These books are commonly referred to as “the Apocrypha“:
    • 1 Esdras (Vulgate 3 Esdras)
    • 2 Esdras (Vulgate 4 Esdras)
    • Tobit
    • Judith (“Judeth” in Geneva)
    • Additions to Esther (Vulgate Esther 10:4 – 16:24)
    • Wisdom
    • Ecclesiasticus (also known as Sirach)
    • Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremy (“Jeremiah” in Geneva) (all part of Vulgate Baruch)
    • Additions to Daniel
      • Song of the Three Children (Vulgate Daniel 3:24–90)
      • Story of Susanna (Vulgate Daniel 13)
      • The Idol Bel and the Dragon (Vulgate Daniel 14)
    • Prayer of Manasseh
    • 1 Maccabees
    • 2 Maccabees
  • The canon of the Catholic Church was affirmed by the Council of Rome (AD 382), the Synod of Hippo (AD 393), two of the Councils of Carthage (AD 397 and 419), the Council of Florence (AD 1431–1449) and finally, as an article of faith, by the Council of Trent (AD 1545–1563).
    • Those established the Catholic biblical canon consisting of 46 books in the Old Testament and 27 books in the New Testament for a total of 73 books.
  • See here for more info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon.

• Below are some deep insights from Jim in our Slack group:
  • 
    • The councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) were local councils.
    • The earlier Ecumenical Council of Rome (383) was NOT a local council, but included the representatives of the entire church.
      • (“Ecumenical”, when in the context of church councils, means “whole church” or “universal”).
    • The Ecumenical Council of Rome did NOT include the deuterocanonical (Apocryphal) books (Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, 1&2 Macabees, etc.). It ONLY included the books that were in the Jewish Scripture set, the Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings, or the 39 books we know today.  The Council also affirmed the same 27 New Testament books we have today.
    • The LOCAL Councils of Hippo (393) and the LOCAL Council of Carthage (397) did include SOME of the deuterocanonical (Apocryphal) books, but the two lists differed considerably.
      • They did agree with the 39 Jewish Scriptures and the 27 New Testament books, but differed from each other with which deuterocanonical books they included.
    • Answers to the Catholic Arguments:
      • The New Testament and the Apocrypha
        • There may be New Testament allusions to the Apocrypha, but not once is there a definite quotation from any Apocrypha book accepted by the Roman Catholic church.
        • There are allusions to Pseudepigraphical books (false writings) that are rejected by Roman Catholics as well as Protestants, such as the Bodily Assumption of Moses (Jude 9) and the Book of Enoch (Jude 14–15). There are also citations from Pagan poets and philosophers (Acts 17:28; 1 Cor. 15:33; Titus 1:12). None of these sources are cited as Scripture, nor with authority.
        • The New Testament simply refers to a truth contained in these books which otherwise may (and do) have errors. Roman Catholic scholars agree with this assessment. The New Testament never refers to any document outside the canon as authoritative.
      • The Septuagint and the Apocrypha
        • The Septuagint is the Greek Old Testament. It is the earliest existing Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible from the original Hebrew.
        • The fact that the New Testament often quotes from other books in the Greek Old Testament in no way proves that the deuterocanonical (Apocryphal) books it contains are inspired. It is not even certain that the Septuagint (Greek Old Testament) of the first century contained the Apocrypha. The earliest Greek manuscripts that include them date from the fourth century A.D.
          • Even if these writings were in the Septuagint (Greek Old Testament) in apostolic times, Jesus and the apostles never once quoted from them, although they are supposed to have been included in the very version of the Old Testament (the Septuagint) that the Lord and apostles usually cited.
            • Notes in the currently used Roman Catholic New American Bible (NAB) make the admission that the Apocrypha are “Religious books used by both Jews and Christians which were not included in the collection of inspired writings.” Instead, they “… were introduced rather late into the collection of the Bible. Catholics call them ‘dddeuterocanonical’ (second canon) books” (NAB, 413).
      • Use by the Church Fathers
        • Citations of church fathers in support of the canonicity of the Apocrypha is selective and misleading.
        • Some fathers did seem to accept their inspiration; other fathers used them for devotional or homiletical (preaching) purposes but did not accept them as canonical. An authority on the Apocrypha, Roger Beckwith, observes:
          • When one examines the passages in the early Fathers which are supposed to establish the canonicity of the Apocrypha, one finds that some of them are taken from the alternative Greek text of Ezra (1 Esdras) or from additions or appendices to Daniel, Jeremiah or some other canonical book, which … are not really relevant; that others of them are not quotations from the Apocrypha at all; and that, of those which are, many do not give any indication that the book is regarded as Scripture. [Beckwith, 387]
          • The Epistle of Barnabas 6.7 and Tertullian, Against Marcion 3.22.5, are not quoting Wisd. 2:12 but Isa. 3:10 LXX, and Tertullian, On the Soul 15, is not quoting Wisd. 1:6 but Ps. 139:23, as a comparison of the passages shows. Similarly, Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 129, is quite clearly not quoting Wisdom but Prov. 8:21–5 LXX. The fact that he calls Proverbs “Wisdom” is in accordance with the common nomenclature of the earlier Fathers. [Beckwith, 427]
        • Frequently in references, the fathers were not claiming divine authority for any of the eleven books infallibly canonized by the Council of Trent. Rather, they were citing a well-known piece of Hebrew literature or an informative devotional writing to which they gave no presumption of inspiration by the Holy Spirit.
      • The Fathers and the Apocrypha.
        • Some individuals in the early church held the Apocrypha in high esteem; others were vehemently opposed to them.
          • J. D. N. Kelly’s comment that “for the great majority [of early fathers] … the deuterocanonical writings ranked as scripture in the fullest sense” is out of sync with the facts. Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Origen, and the great Roman Catholic biblical scholar and translator of the Latin Vulgate, Jerome, all opposed inclusion of the Apocrypha. In the second century A.D. the Syrian Bible (Peshitta) did not contain the Apocrypha (Geisler, General Introduction, chaps. 27, 28).
      • Catacomb Art Apocrypha Themes.
        • As many Catholic scholars admit, scenes from the catacombs do not prove the canonicity of the books whose events they depict. Such scenes indicate little more than the religious significance the portrayed events had for early Christians. At best, they show a respect for the books containing these events, not a recognition that they are inspired.
      • Books in the Greek Manuscripts.
        • None of the great Greek manuscripts (Aleph, A, and B) contain all of the apocryphal books. Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, and Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) are found in all of them, and the oldest manuscripts (B or Vaticanus) totally exclude the Books of Maccabees.
        • Catholics appeal to this manuscript in support of their view. No Greek manuscript has the same list of apocryphal books accepted by the Council of Trent (1545–63; Beckwith, 194, 382–83).
      • Acceptance by Early Councils.
        • These were only local councils and were not binding on the whole church. Local councils often erred in their decisions and were later overruled by the universal church.
        • Some Catholic apologists argue that, even though a council was not ecumenical (universal – pertaining to the whole church), its results can be binding if they were confirmed by a Pope. However, they acknowledge that there is no infallible way to know which statements by Popes are infallible. Indeed, they admit that other statements by Popes were even heretical, such as the monothelite heresy of Pope Honorius I (d. 638).
        • It is also important to remember that these books were not part of the Christian (New Testament period) writings. Hence, they were not under the province of the Christian church to decide. They were the province of the Jewish community which wrote them and which had, centuries before, rejected them as part of the canon.
          The books accepted by these Christian Councils may not have been the same ones in each case. Hence, they cannot be used as proof of the exact canon later infallibly proclaimed by the Roman Catholic church in 1546.
    • The Dead Sea Scrolls also provide insight to the view the early Jewish leaders had of what was Scripture or not:
      • Apocryphal Writings at Qumran.
        • The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran included not only the community’s Bible (the Old Testament) but their library, with fragments of hundreds of books.
        • Among these were some Old Testament Apocryphal books. The fact that no commentaries were found for an Apocryphal book, and only canonical books were found in the special parchment and script indicates that the Apocryphal books were not viewed as canonical by the Qumran community.
        • Menahem Mansoor lists the following fragments of the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha: Tobit, in Hebrew and Aramaic; Enoch in Aramaic; Jubilees in Hebrew; Testament of Levi and Naphtali, in Aramaic; Apocryphal Daniel literature, in Hebrew and Aramaic, and Psalms of Joshua (Mansoor, 203).
        • The noted scholar on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Millar Burroughs, concluded: “There is no reason to think that any of these works were venerated as Sacred Scripture” (Burroughs, 178).
    • More from the summary of this topic from the Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics:
      • Evidence indicates that the Protestant canon, consisting of the thirty-nine books of the Hebrew Bible and excluding the Apocrypha, is the true canon.
        • The only difference between the Protestant and ancient Palestinian Canon lies in organization.
          • The ancient Bible lists twenty-four books. Combined into one each are 1–2 Samuel, 1–2 Kings, 1–2 Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemiah (reducing the number by four).
          • The twelve Minor Prophets are counted as one book (reducing the number by eleven).
        • The Palestinian Jews represented Jewish orthodoxy. Therefore, their canon was recognized as the orthodox one.
        • It was the canon of Jesus (Geisler, General Introduction, chap. 5), Josephus, and Jerome. It was the canon of many early church fathers, among them Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Athanasius.
        • Arguments in support of the Protestant Canon can be divided into two categories: historical and doctrinal.
          • The test of canonicity (historical argument).
            • Contrary to the Roman Catholic argument from Christian usage, the true test of canonicity is propheticity.
            • God determined which books would be in the Bible by giving their message to a prophet. So only books written by a prophet or accredited spokesperson for God are inspired and belong in the canon of Scripture.
            • Of course, while God determined canonicity by propheticity; the people of God had to discover which of these books were prophetic.
            • The people of God to whom the prophet wrote knew what prophets fulfilled the biblical tests for God’s representatives, and they authenticated them by accepting the writings as from God:
              • Moses’ books were accepted immediately and stored in a holy place (Deut. 31:26).
              • Joshua’s writing was immediately accepted and preserved along with Moses’ Law (Josh. 24:26).
              • Samuel added to the collection (1 Sam. 10:25).
              • Daniel already had a copy of his prophetic contemporary Jeremiah (Dan. 9:2) and the law (Dan. 9:11, 13).
              • While Jeremiah’s message may have been rejected by much of his generation, the remnant must have accepted and spread it speedily.
              • Paul encouraged the churches to circulate his inspired Epistles (Col. 4:16).
              • Peter already had a collection of Paul’s writings, equating them with the Old Testament as “Scripture” (2 Peter 3:15–16).
      • Early church council rejection.
        • No canonic list or council of the Christian church accepted the Apocrypha as inspired for nearly the first four centuries. This is significant, since all of the lists available and most of the fathers of this period omit the Apocrypha.
        • The first councils to accept the Apocrypha were only local ones without ecumenical (universal/church-wide) force.
          • The Catholic contention that the Council of Rome (382), though not an ecumenical council, had ecumenical force because Pope Damasus (304–384) ratified it is without grounds.
          • Catholics acknowledge this council was not an ecumenical (church-wide) body.
          • Not all Catholic scholars agree that such affirmations by Popes are infallible.
            • There are no infallible lists of infallible statements by Popes. Nor are there any universally agreed upon criteria for developing such lists.
          • Appealing to a Pope to make infallible a statement by a local council is a double-edged sword. Even Catholic scholars admit that some Popes taught error and were even heretical.
      • Early fathers’ rejection.
        • Early fathers of the Christian church spoke out against the Apocrypha. This included Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, and the great Roman Catholic Bible translator, Jerome.
      • Rejection by Jerome.
        • Jerome (340–420), the greatest biblical scholar of the early Medieval period and translator of the Latin Vulgate, explicitly rejected the Apocrypha as part of the canon.
        • He said the church reads them “for example and instruction of manners” but does not “apply them to establish any doctrine” (“Preface” to Vulgate Book of Solomon, cited in Beckwith, 343).
        • He disputed Augustine’s unjustified acceptance of these books.
        • At first, Jerome even refused to translate the Apocrypha into Latin, but later made a hurried translation of a few books.
    • No New Testament writer quotes from the “tweeners”
      • Jesus quoted MANY passages of OT scripture, but NO quotes from them.

Summary

• We spent so much time chatting about the Apocrypha and Gnostic gospels that we didn’t have time to watch the Romans 9 video and discuss the chapter.
• The Gnostic gospels are spurious.

• Romans overview (video): Part 1, Part 2
• What is Romans?
  • Romans contains letters from Paul to the churches of Rome.
  • The church of Rome had existed for a long time and was made up of Jews and Gentiles.  Emperor Claudius had banished the Jews from the church for 5 years.  When the Jews returned there was a split between Gentiles and Jews in how they should follow Jesus and practice their faiths. Paul’s letters were an attempt to explain his faith and unite the Jews and the Gentiles into one faith worshiping Jesus. Paul hoped the Roman churches could become a staging ground to enable Paul to expand the church into Spain and beyond.
  • Romans is structured as follows:
    • Books 1-4: Revealing God’s Righteousness
    • Books 5-8: Creating a New Humanity
    • Books 9-11: Fulfilling God’s Promise to Israel
    • Books 12-16: Unifying the Church

Romans 4

• Romans 4 Reading Guide
• Romans 4 Teaching Notes (PDF)
• Romans 4 Video

Your righteousness is not because of anything you can earn through good deeds. You are saved only because you’ve accepted Jesus Christ as you’re savior and God forgives your sin because of it.

This blessing is for both the Jews and gentiles. The old Jewish laws such as circumcision are no longer required to be saved.