Romans - March 29, 2009

SECTION --- Five: Vindication of God (9:1 -- 11:36) .
(continued from previous Class Follow Up)

12. (9:10) If the receiving of Abraham’s promise is only family tree what is the problem with Jacob’s children being the receiver of Abraham’s promise?
a. Jacob (Israel) had a twin brother, Esau, thus, why was Jacob chosen over the first born Esau? (Gen 25:25)
13. PONDER: What reason could the Jew give to justify Jacob being the receiver of Abraham’s promise and not Esau.
a. Esau, as seen in his selling of his birthright for something to eat, was not as good a man as was Jacob — Esau was only interested in the here and now.
14. (9:11) What was God’s criteria for choosing Jacob over Esau?
a. All we are told it was not of works, thus, it was according to God’s choice to fill His purpose — it is by promise not Family Tree.
15. (9:12) Did Esau the man serve Jacob the man, i.e., did God promise Esau the man would serve Jacob the man?
a. No. If any thing the man Jacob serve Esau the man (Gen 32:3-12). God was talking nations not persons (Gen 25:23).
b. The nation of Esau did serve the nation of Jacob (Israel) 1Ch 18:12-13.
16. (9:13) By this action did God love the man Jacob more than he love the man Esau?
a. No. God preferred the nation of Jacob more than the nation of Edom (Esau) (Mal 1:2-4) to carry out his purpose.
17. PONDER: Why did God prefers Jacob over Esau?
a. God does not state he had a reason for God did not need a reason. God’s plan only required, or could use, one nation. Mankind could look back in history and say perhaps because Edom would not allow Israel pass over his land (Num 20:14-22). and Edom also became a worshiper of false gods. Israel was not allow to destroy Edom as they did others who blocked their way from Egypt. (Num 21:1-4; Deu 23:7). The nation of Esau did serve the nation of Jacob until the nation of Edom revolted. However, the fact remains God chose because God chose and a reason that is reasonable to us is not required.
b. CONSIDER: It is speculation without foundation to suggest if God had called Esau Esau would still have gone bad and Jacob would have remained good. Perhaps the one God called was good because God the Creator and Sustainer called him.
18. PONDER: Can this passage (6-13) be used to support the position God chose certain people to be saved by the gospel or lost by rejecting the gospel? Why that answer?
a. No, all that can be proven is God did chose certain nations to be the means for the fulfilment of Gen 3:15, i.e., the means to provide the power of salvation, the gospel (Rom 1:6) to all mankind. Individuals still had the power and right to chose or reject God.

D. Evidence Applied [Discussion Question Answered] — What is the proof who is God’s people is a matter of God’s purpose and not what one is due because of their family tree?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
A LOOK AHEAD
1.
E. Conclusion —


III. {Rom 9:14-18} 2nd of 3 Arguments — Example of God choosing as fits God’s purpose
A. Introduction
1. Review — Paul has established the physical decedents of Abraham (the Israelites) have reason to be proud and deserve respect for their “family tree” for they have been blessed by God, as their history clearly shows. However, God’s choosing is not based on one’s “family tree” but as the Creator He chooses, i.e., God’s as the creator can make decisions without human input and His decision are correct.
2. Preview — Our merciful God did not require human input as to what is fair or unfair to make a decision that is correct — God chooses whom he chooses to provide the fulfillment of Gen 3:15.
B. Question For Discussion?
1. How did God justify His decision regarding Pharaoh?
C. Questions For Encouraging Discussion...
1. (9:14) Based on context what is the significance of the rhetorical question, “There is no injustice with God, is there?”
a.
2. (9:14) Considering the reason for this Section (Vindication of God [9:1-11:36]) what should the listeners learn?
a.
3. PONDER: What could the readers say to prove Paul’s reasoning is not valid?
a.
4. (9:15) Paul quotes Exodus 33:19. What light does this shed on Paul’s position.
a.
5. (9:16) What is the difference between “the man that wills” and “the man that runs”
a.
6. (9:16) What does this have to do with Jacob and Esau?
a.
7. (9:16) What is the significance of “So then...”
a.
8. (9:16) What is the conclusion the non- prejudicial reader should draw regarding Paul’s position on the Jew’s means of salvation.
a.
9. (9:17) What is the significance of the 1st and 2nd “for” in this verse?
a.
10. (9:17) What are your thoughts on the phrased “I raised you up...”
a.
11. (9:17) PONDER: In light of what Paul has said, was God unfair in His dealings with Pharaoh, i.e., could Pharaoh let God’s people go after the water turned to blood, or did Pharaoh have to continue rejecting God’s will?
a.
12. (9:17) PONDER: What do you feel would have been the results if Pharaoh had let the people go when Moses first ask?
a.
13. (9:18) What does this statement do to the Jew’s concept, “God owes us salvation?”
a.
14. (9:18) Does this verse support the TULIP doctrine God has determine specific individuals who are saved or not saved? Why that answer?
a.

D. Evidence Applied [Discussion Question Answered] — How did God justify His decision regarding Pharaoh?
1. God (creator of Time, Space, and Mass) does not seek to justify His actions. God, who is the example of real mercy and compassion, does what is best for the salvation of mankind, even if mankind (who does not understand real mercy and compassion) does not agree.
E. Conclusion — Based on history the Christian, who are influenced by the LOM, have just been told they do not have the ability, knowledge, or wisdom to suggest or say God’s plan of salvation through Christ, thus, replacing the LOM, is not the right thing to do.

IV. {Rom } 3rd of 3 Arguments