No Longer Under The Law?

You may have heard that as Christians, we are no longer under the law. But what does this actually mean? You're going to get a different answer, depending on which Christian you ask this question from. And they might as well all refer to certain passages in the Bible to support their answer. But who's right in the midst of all of this confusion? Surely, we should be able to highlight certain facts revealed in the scriptures that none of the false views would be able to make sense of? I agree and that's exactly why I'm writing this post - I'm going to highlight these facts and if you can find someone who disagrees with my view, yet can make sense of these facts revealed to us in the scriptures, do let me know!

First, I want to examine what the scriptures mean by "being under." The mainstream understanding of this phrase is seeking justification before God. Some argue that while we're not under the law, meaning while we're not seeking justification before God by obeying the law, we're still obligated to keep the law. In Galatians 5:3, it is written that some gentile believers are about to get circumcised after coming to Christ. Paul writes to them that if they allow themselves to be circumcised, they will be obligated to keep the whole law, and that they have been alienated from Christ. Of course, it's noteworthy to mention that Paul is not saying that those who are circumcised, as in mostly the Jews, are obligated to keep the whole law and can't come to Christ. In Galatians 5:6, he says that in Christ Jesus, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value! His audience in Galatians 5:3 are those who are still seeking justification before God, by keeping the law, even after coming to Christ.

Therefore, being under the law is generally understood as seeking justification before God, by keeping the law. Almost all Christians, even Catholics agree that justification before God by keeping the law alone is impossible, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God—Romans 3:23. The disagreements however come from what the law is, and how much of it applies to Christians, and how much disobedience is allowed under the new covenant, before one can "lose" their salvation in Christ. Some argue that the law refers to the whole law of Moses depicted in Leviticus and Deuteronomy including the moral laws. Others argue that the law only refers to the dietary and ceremonial laws in the Tanakh, and not the moral laws; so the moral laws according to this view are still bounding.

But what does the scripture says? While there is evidence in the New Testament, that almost all dietary and ceremonial laws in the Old Testament were simply shadows that were pointing to Christ, I argue that what the scripture means by the law, is indeed the whole law including the moral laws. This is evidenced in Romans 7 where Paul talks about the law of coveting, which is a moral law and part of the ten commandments. In Romans 7:8, he says that sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of coveting. For apart from the law, sin was dead. So it doesn't matter what thousands of theologians might say, what Paul means by the law, is indeed the whole law including the moral laws, even the ones in the ten commandments.

This is further evidenced in the scriptures such as in 1 Corinthians 6:12 which says, "“I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything”—but I will not be mastered by anything." or Galatians 5:13 which says, "You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; rather, serve one another humbly in love." So it really doesn't matter what different theologians might say. The truth is that the freedom we have in Christ, is real. Does this mean that we as Christians who truly believe in this freedom, are lawless and promote sin or wish to sin even more so that grace may increase? By no means! I'm addressing this strawman the same way Paul addresses it in Romans 6:1-2. Paul says we are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? Does this mean that as Christians, we're perfect and no longer sin? Not really.

As Christians, we are a new Creation and have a new identity, if indeed the Spirit of Christ lives in us. Romans 8:9 says that we are not in the realm of the flesh, but in the realm of the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in us. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ. Galatians 3:29 says that if we are in Christ, then we are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. This is while Galatians 3:16 says that Abraham's seed is only one person who is Christ! So, our new identity is in Christ and when God looks at us, He sees Christ, if indeed we belong to Christ. This however, does not mean that we're perfect and no longer sin. We still have the same flesh that we used to have, before coming to Christ. Galatians 5:17 says, "For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other, so that you are not to do whatever you want."

So we still have the flesh and we can and may still sin, but our sin does not define or change our new identity which is in Christ. We also have the Spirit of God in us and as Romans 7:14-25 says, sin grieves us because our inner being agrees with the law of God, but we find another law at work in our flesh. In Romans 7:20 Paul says, "If I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it." In other words, when I sin in my flesh, it does not define or change my new identity which is in Christ. In Romans 7:24-25 he says, "What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!" Notice that our body or flesh is indeed subject to death because of sin.

Now the laws of God in the Old Testament can indeed be broken down into different categories such as the dietary laws, the ceremonial laws, the sacrificial laws, and the moral laws. In the New Testament, we read that only the moral laws are universal and a matter of conscience, whereas the other laws were simply shadows pointing to the Cross. Having said that however, with regards to certain dietary laws, we also read in Romans 14:23 that everything that does not come from faith is sin! And Christians in general are advised to avoid food sacrificed to idols—Acts 15:29. But we also read in 1 Corinthians 8 that there is nothing inherently sinful in even food sacrificed to idols, because we know that there is only One God and we can even eat such food! But in 1 Corinthians 10:28-29 we read that if an unbeliever wants to make it a matter of conscience, then we ought not to eat the food, lest they get the wrong message. But as Paul says we do this for the sake of the unbeliever's conscience, and not ours!

What is the importance of the law then? Romans 3:19 says, "We know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God." Furthermore, Romans 7:9-13 says, "Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death. So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good. Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! Nevertheless, in order that sin might be recognised as sin, it used what is good to bring about my death, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful." So we can conclude from these passages that the law is holy, good and righteous. Its purpose is to show us our faults, but while it shows us our faults, it also causes us to sin even more. This happens because the law stirs up our curiosity and causes us to break the commandments. But now that sin is recognised, we're able to believe in Christ and be set free, not only from the condemnation that comes from breaking the commandments, but also from the bondage of law that stirs up our curiosity and causes us to break the commandments. If we belong to Christ, the Spirit of Christ lives in us and we are no longer under the law, but under Christ's law. Or as Paul puts it in Romans 3:27, the new law requires faith and not works.

What about our works? Do our works count for anything at all? Of course they do! While under Christ's law, salvation or eternal life is by grace alone, through faith alone, apart from works, as we read in scriptures such as Romans 3:28, Romans 4:5, Ephesians 2:8-9, and Galatians 2:16, that does not mean that works are totally irrelevant. The first relevance of our works is perhaps a worldly thing but it's really a divine setup, that even atheists understand. Take Romans 13:4 for example, "For the one in authority is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God's servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer." Now this of course is not always 100% accurate as with corrupt and evil governments or authorities, sometimes the righteous are persecuted and punished, but generally speaking, crimes such as theft, murder, rape, etc are punishable throughout the world. And if something like adultery or prostitution for example is not punished in a society like our modern Western societies, there is still social and personal consequences for them. Not only that, true happiness is only found if we live a decent life in peace and respect our fellow brothers and sisters in Adam.

Having said that, many of the passages in the Bible that warn believers of judgement are mainly talking about judgement in this world and not in the afterlife. There are certain passages that do talk about the judgement of even believers in the afterlife, but this judgement is merely for rewarding the faithful servants of Christ. As 1 Corinthians 3:10-15 puts it, those whose works are burned up in the fire, will still be saved, even though only as one escaping through the flames! To recap, salvation or eternal life is by grace alone, through faith alone, apart from works; while inheriting the Kingdom of God, or reigning with Christ in the age to come is based on good works, built on the only foundation, which is Jesus Christ. This understanding of the scriptures, not only makes perfect sense of salvation by grace alone through faith alone apart from works, but also makes perfect sense of the importance of our works and perseverance as well as the passages that talk about the judgement of believers.

As 2 Timothy 11-13 puts it, "If we died with him, we will also live with him." This refers to believing in Jesus for eternal life which is symbolically celebrated through immersive baptism. "If we endure, we will also reign with him." This refers to the importance of works, and perseverance and how enduring is required to reign with him. "If we disown him, he will also disown us." This refers to rejecting the Gospel, which leads to the second death. "If we are faithless, he remains faithful, for he cannot disown himself." This is once saved, always saved; after we put 100% of our faith in Jesus and receive the sealing of the Holy Spirit and become God's possession, even if we are faithless or in other words, disobedient, he remains faithful because he cannot disown himself!

Bible Study: Divorce and Remarriage

The first passage in the New Testament that talks about divorce and remarriage is in Matthew 5:31-32. It's during the sermon on the mount where Jesus says, "31 “It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’ 32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery." In Matthew 19:3-12 this topic is brought up again, and this time by some Pharisees. Let's have a look at this passage as well.

3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?” 4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” 7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?” 8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.” 10 The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.” 11 Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

The most natural reading of this passage tells us that there is at least one exception for divorce and remarriage in the eyes of Jesus that does not lead to adultery. But before we examine this exception, it's noteworthy that this question is brought up by Pharisees who are asking whether it's lawful or not to divorce your wife for any and every reason. Jesus doesn't dispute their understanding of the Law of Moses, unlike what some people suggest. He simply tells them that Moses permitted them to divorce their wives because their hearts were hard. Notice that Jesus doesn't mention the "for any and every reason" part here, because it would be unnecessary and redundant. It doesn't mean that he's not addressing the same question or that he disagrees with their understanding of the Mosaic Law. So it's clear that the Law of Moses permitted men to divorce their wives for any and every reason. This Law comes from Deuteronomy 24:1-4 since this passage is the only passage in the Torah which talks about the certificate of divorce. Let's have a look at this passage as well.

24 If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, 2 and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man, 3 and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, or if he dies, 4 then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled. That would be detestable in the eyes of the Lord. Do not bring sin upon the land the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance.

Notice that verse 4 says that her first husband is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled! In other words, remarriage to your first wife after she has had sexual intercourse with another man is not permitted under the Law of Moses. Now would this law apply in case of adultery during marriage? I think it would and the reason the Mosaic Law does not mention this is simply because an adulterer or an adulteress was stoned to death! Jesus is also warning his followers against adultery in his statement about divorce and remarriage. In other words, adultery is the most natural exception that one could possibly think of, when reading this passage, simply because there is no point for Jesus to warn his followers against committing adultery after divorce, if they've already committed adultery during marriage. This should give us an insight into examining the exception, which is translated as "sexual immorality" in most translations that we have today.

Some argue that the exception is only mentioned in the gospel of Matthew and not in Luke or Mark and therefore, there should be more to the exception than meets the eye. But this is not really a good ground to argue from. Take the same account in the gospel of Mark for instance. The question from the Pharisees in the gospel of Mark doesn't include "for any and every reason". Whether this question is asked by different Pharisees or whether it's the same account and the author in Mark is simplifying things, it not only makes sense why Mark doesn't include the exception but also means that the exception must be something natural or inherent as I explained the case with adultery before divorce which would nullify the marriage anyway.

Critics argue that the word used for the exception in Greek is "porneia" which means fornication, and that the Greek word for adultery used in the same verse is "moicheia" and therefore, the exception cannot be adultery otherwise Jesus would have used the same word. But "porneia" or fornication, which is generally translated as sexual immorality, which is the word from which we get the word "pornography" from, simply means sexual intercourse with someone you're not married to and as a result, it naturally includes not only adultery but also homosexuality since marriage is defined in Genesis 2:24 as the union between one man and one woman. Paul uses the same word, "porneia", in 1 Corinthians 5:1 to refer to someone in the church who's having sex with his father's wife! Paul refers to this act as "porneia" or fornication, not adultery, even though the woman in this context is committing adultery. The reason Paul refers to this as fornication is because it's more than adultery! It's also incest!

These same critics also argue that "porneia" or fornication refers to sex before marriage and the exception is referring to a divorce that takes place during engagement, and not after marriage. This view not only fails to make sense of how Paul uses the same word in 1 Corinthians 5:1 in reference to an adultery as well as incest, but also fails to make sense of the most natural reading of this passage as I explained above. These critics point out to Joseph wanting to divorce Mary in Matthew 1:19 to support their case. However, the relationship that Jesus is addressing doesn't allude to an engagement even in a Jewish context or tradition. Because even in the Jewish context or tradition, a man would not leave his father and mother and join his wife and become one with her as Genesis 2:24 states, after engagement but rather after marriage or the wedding ceremony. So "porneia" or fornication or sexual immorality in my view, is simply sexual activity outside of the marriage bed, and so not only includes adultery, but also incest, homosexuality, polygamy, and even consuming pornography because lusting after people you're not married to, is adultery in the heart, as Jesus taught in Matthew 5:27-30.

Another passage that these critics like to use to support their argument is 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 where Paul seems to repeat what Jesus has said, without including the exception clause. He says, "10 To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11 But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife." But Paul doesn't say that this is the case "for any and every reason." In fact, two chapters before, he's already said this in 1 Corinthians 5:9-11: "9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11 But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people."

In other words, Paul has already made it clear for believers that they're not to even eat with anyone who claims to be a believer, but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Notice that the word "sexually immoral" here is again the same Greek word that Jesus uses in his exception clause for divorce and remarriage, and also notice that Paul does not mention adulterer in his list because he thinks that the word "porneia", which means fornication or sexual immorality, already includes adultery as well. Paul says that this is not about dissociating yourselves from the unbelievers, because then you'd have to leave the world, meaning almost everyone in the world is guilty of these sins. But he then says that if someone claims to be a brother or sister in Christ, yet commits these sins, then you must not associate with them. Am I saying that Paul contradicts Jesus by adding even more exceptions? Not really. I'm only saying that just because Paul does not mention the exception clause in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, and just because neither Mark nor Luke mention the exception clause either, it doesn't mean that they're addressing divorce "for any and every reason," unlike Matthew 19:3 where the question from Pharisees explicitly mentions the words "for any and every reason."

Not only that, Paul also gives his own command or permission(I, not the Lord) for remarriage in 1 Corinthians 7:15-16 in case an unbelieving husband or wife of a believer leaves. He first says that the believer should remain in the marriage and pray that God saves their spouse. But he then says that if the unbelieving spouse leaves, the believer is not bound anymore. He uses the same word here that he uses in Romans 7:2 to refer to how a believer is no longer bound to their spouse after their spouse dies, meaning they can remarry. In Romans 7:3 he says, "So then, if she has sexual relations with another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress if she marries another man."

Another argument for divorce and remarriage leading to adultery under any circumstance is that our marriage is supposed to represent the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as in the metaphorical marriage of Christ with His Church. And since Christ forgives His Church for even adultery in a metaphorical sense, so should we forgive one another for even adultery. This is not a direct argument from scriptures but I personally have nothing against forgiveness and reconciliation. It's a beautiful thing and if anyone who's been cheated on has the grace should totally at least try it. The other party however may not even ask for forgiveness or seek reconciliation and may divorce and remarry, in which case I think the believer is no longer bound and the first marriage is annulled, and in case of a divorce in the second marriage, going back to the first marriage would be an abomination to the Lord, as we read in Deuteronomy 24:1-4.

Also, in the old covenant, adultery in a metaphorical sense, was breaking the first commandment. Thou shall not have any other god before me. It was a serious sin and punishable by death. In the new covenant, since we're not under the law, but under grace, and since the law of grace requires faith, and not works, as scripture says in Romans 3:27-28, while all of our sins are forgivable, there remains one sin that is unforgivable in a sense which is the sin of unbelief. Or in other words, lack of faith. It's the very means by which we are saved. We need to put 100% of our faith in Jesus alone for our salvation. If we mix this percentage and put even 1% of our faith in ourselves or in another god or in anything other than Jesus, are we still saved? I don't think so. This could be seen as committing adultery in a metaphorical sense under the new covenant, which leads to Jesus saying "I never knew you," on the day of judgement, as depicted in Matthew 7:21. This is a very important topic normally known as the faith vs. works dichotomy which I have already written about before.

To recap, let me be clear that God hates divorce and so do I. And in fact, as a single, and never-married bloke, I always tell God that I would rather remain single and die single, than end up in a broken marriage. Because I know that a broken marriage is devastating even though I have not personally experienced it myself. A divorce and then remarriage would be even more devastating unless you don't really love the person you marry. But legalism is not the answer here; if it were, or as apostle Paul says in Galatians 2:21, "if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!" If you're in a marriage and you're considering divorce, or if you've divorced already and you're considering remarriage, let me advise you to take a step back and pray about it and do everything you can to restore your marriage. Remember what Deuteronomy 24:1-4 says as well because you cannot restore your marriage if you divorce and marry someone else.

The reason I say this is because often times, critics like to blame people like me for divorces and remarriages. I don't think this is fair because I'm doing my best to stay true to the scriptures. Even if my understanding of this topic is wrong and divorce followed by remarriage is adultery for any reason, I would still like to point you to God's grace and ask you to rest in the fact that your salvation is not based on your works, but based on God's grace alone, through your faith alone, apart from the works of the law. So regardless of what the scriptures teach on this topic, if you have gone through a divorce and remarriage already, you can be rest assured that the blood of Jesus covers everything! If you're not sure about the blood of Jesus covering all of your sins both past and future, I would like to advise you to study the faith vs. works dichotomy first, because that topic is a much more important topic and it concerns your salvation regardless of your holiness. As Paul says in Romans 3:28, "For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law."

Debunking Calvinism — Romans 9

I've always known that one day as a passionate anti-Calvinist Christian, I'll learn enough to feel confident to exegete Romans 9 verse by verse. Romans 9 in my view is by far the most twisted passage by many Protestants who often identify as Calvinist, but not all of them. Some of them steer clear from this label and call themselves Biblicist or simply Christian, even though what they believe and teach is ultimately what John Calvin believed and taught. In short, Calvinists believe that God picks Jacob, but not Esau, Isaac, but not Ishmael, you, but not your neighbour, etc, etc, for salvation before you're even born or have done anything good or bad. They believe this mostly based on their understanding of Romans 9 and specifically based on verse 10-13 where Paul says:

10 Not only that, but Rebekah’s children were conceived at the same time by our father Isaac. 11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: 12 not by works but by Him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

Romans 9 is the bread and butter passage for Calvinists. It's where they go when everything else seems to fail, especially when they're confronted with anti-Calvinists who do not believe that true believers can "lose" their salvation. In other words, believers like me who are said to adhere to the P of TULIP in some form, which stands for the perseverance of the saints. This view I believe is very Biblical and as apostle John said in 1 John 2:19, "They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us." or as Hebrews 10:39 says, "But we do not belong to those who shrink back and are destroyed, but to those who have faith and are saved." Having said that, let's jump straight to Romans 9 to see what Paul is trying to tell us.

1 I speak the truth in Christ—I am not lying, my conscience confirms it through the Holy Spirit— 2 I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my people, those of my own race, 4 the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption to sonship; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. 5 Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.

Paul starts this chapter by expressing his anguish and hurt feelings towards his own people, aka the people of Israel. There is nothing to dispute in the first paragraph up to verse 5 other than an interesting verse in which Paul wishes that he himself was cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of his people. This type of sacrifice that Paul wishes to show towards his people does not seem to sit very well with the type of god that Calvinists believe in. If one was honest, they would have to conclude that Paul has more love towards the lost than the god of Calvinists who admittedly is indeed inspiring the very scriptures that are being written by Paul. This I believe is a tremendous conundrum for Calvinists who do not believe that God desires literally all men to be saved. In the traditional view however, the impossibility of the fulfilment of this desire due to man's freedom of choice and will does not create such a conundrum.

6 It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7 Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.”

I believe verse 6 is very important here because it sets out the picture of what Paul is trying to explain in this chapter. Paul says that God's word hasn't failed and he goes on to explain why or how. The first question we should ask is why would someone think that God's word has failed in the first place? Paul seems to think that the rejection of Christ by Israel might make someone think that God's word has failed, which is why he expresses his anguish over the matter right before verse 6. He goes on by saying that not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. Now we need to ask what the first and second Israel here refer to? I think everyone would agree that the first Israel refers to Jacob while the second Israel refers to the spiritual Israel. Or could the second Israel refer to the seed of Abraham, in other words Christ? Paul makes a very beautiful case about this seed in Galatians 3 and goes on about how it's a singular word and not plural and therefore, it refers to one person, who is Christ . Back to Romans 9, Paul goes on by saying that not everyone who's a child of Jacob is considered to be the seed or offspring of Abraham. This understanding of what Paul is saying here is very important, because Calvinists think that Paul is talking about individual salvations, and then goes on by saying that Isaac or Jacob were chosen to be saved before they were even born or had done anything good or bad, while Ishmael or Esau were doomed from the womb! But that is not even remotely close to what Paul seems to have in his mind. Paul is clearly talking about whether God's promise, or God's word, or Abraham's seed or in other words, Christ, has failed or not. Therefore, he goes on by saying that Abraham's seed was said to be reckoned through Isaac, and not through any of the other children that Abraham had.

8 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. 9 For this was how the promise was stated: “At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son.”

In verse 8, Paul switches around to explain the relationship between believers and this singular seed and how they get to become part of this single seed. He talks about this in Galatians 3:29, by saying that if you belong to Christ, who he claims to be Abraham's single seed in Galatians 3:16, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. In other words, although Abraham's seed is one person, who is Christ, others can become part of this seed by believing in Him and going from being in Adam or belonging to Adam, to being in Christ or belonging to Christ. Therefore, becoming a child of God has nothing to do with who your grand daddy is! This is the major point that Paul is making here. He goes back to the promise again by referring to how God prophesied to Sarah that she's going to have a son.

10 Not only that, but Rebekah’s children were conceived at the same time by our father Isaac. 11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: 12 not by works but by Him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

Paul goes on by saying that this promise continued on as it had to until the actual seed who is Christ would later come into the world. This time he refers to the election of Jacob over Esau. He says that this election had nothing to do with either Jacob or Esau, and it was decided before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad. In other words, God's promise or word does not depend on whether His chosen people are good or bad, otherwise it might fail! He then refers to a verse from Malachi which is about God taking the side of Jacob, or the Israelis, over Esau or the Edomites, almost 1500 years after Jacob and Esau are born, in a war in which Edom, or the Edomites are attacking Jacob, or Israel. It's noteworthy that in those days nations were commonly referred to by their patriarchal head. Based on the context of this passage in the Tanakh, this election is about nations and not individuals ie. Jacob, or the nation of Israel vs. Esau, or the nation of Edom.

In Genesis 25:23, God Himself says to Rebekkah that two nations are in her womb and that the older will serve the younger which is what Paul is quoting here. It's also about election for service and not election for salvation. In other words, since Christ or Abraham's seed is going to come into the world through Jacob, or the nation of Israel, God is going to love and protect this nation even against Esau, or the nation of Edom, or the Edomites, who are basically their brothers! And that's essentially what's going on in the context of Malachi where God takes the side of Israel and defends Israel against the attack from their brothers, the Edomites. Therefore, this has nothing to do with individual salvations, but rather everything to do with how God's promise or word hasn't failed. It's also noteworthy to mention that the word "hate" here should not be taken literally, because it's idiomatic. To choose someone or something over someone or something else, idiomatically leads to loving the former and hating the latter. By choosing Jacob over Esau, who would become the nation of Israel through which the Messiah would later come into the world, God has idiomatically loved Jacob and hated Esau. This however does not in any way mean that Esau was doomed from the womb. Another thing that is worthy to mention is that this verse is written almost 1500 years after Jacob and Esau were born and after God loves and protects Jacob(Israel) against Esau(Edom), their brothers! God literally loves Jacob, and hates Esau for attacking Israel as expressed in Malachi. Therefore, the original "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." which is in Malachi 1, revealed almost 1500 years after Jacob and Esau were born, when Israel is being attacked by the Edomites, is indeed a literal hate which is conditional, in the sense that God has to protect Israel for the sake of His promise or word, even against their brothers, the Edomites, while it's unconditional, in the sense that God would do the same for Esau or Edom if He had chosen them to carry the lineage of Christ, instead of Israel.

14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”

The important question we should ask here is who is the objector in Paul's mind? Is it an anti-Calvinist who is objecting to God for choosing to save Jacob and damn Esau, before they're even born or have done anything good or bad? Or is it an Israeli who's been cut off and is objecting to God for showing mercy to Gentiles while rejecting His chosen nation, Israel? Or could it be a third party observer here who takes issue with God's unconditional election of Jacob or the nation of Israel over Esau or the nation of Edom, to carry the lineage of Christ, and therefore gives them special privileges or provides them with extended mercy and grace, such as taking their side when there is a war between them and their brothers, the Edomites? I believe it's most likely the third case, however it could also be the second case; either way Paul says not at all, and goes on by quoting from Exodus 33:19 saying that as it is written, God will have mercy and compassion on whoever He wants!

16 It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17 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.” 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom He wants to have mercy, and He hardens whom He wants to harden.

The first word "it" in verse 16 here is key. We need to ask ourselves what does "it" in this verse refer to? Does it refer to the salvation of individuals such as Jacob over Esau? Or does it refer to God's promise or word not failing? This is why I previously said that verse 6 in this chapter is very important. Anyone who's been following can tell that "it" in verse 16 refers to God's promise or word not failing, because it does not depend on human desire or effort but on God's mercy! This is where Calvinists error again and treat "it" in verse 16 as if it refers to individual salvations such as the salvation of Jacob over Esau. But that is not the case and this is why Paul immediately goes to Pharaoh's example of how he was hardened by God in his rebellion in order for God to accomplish a greater purpose through him. Calvinists often think that the phrase "I raised you up" somehow means like a parent raising up their child, but that is not what it means here. In fact, many translations translate this verse as "I spared you". NLT says, "But I have spared you for a purpose—to show you my power and to spread my fame throughout the earth." Furthermore, no single Jewish commentary that I've read so far interprets Exodus 9:16 the way Calvinists understand it. Paul concludes by saying that God has mercy on whoever He wants to have mercy and He hardens whoever He wants to harden, and that is how His promise or word cannot fail. I believe that even Calvinists would agree that the hardening of Pharaoh or anyone else in the scriptures has always been what is known as "judicial hardening." In other words, God never hardens someone unless they harden themselves first.

19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist His will?” 20 But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’” 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?

Another hypothetical objector here! We need to ask ourselves again whether he's an anti-Calvinist who is objecting to God blaming them for perhaps not believing in Calvinism, even though they can't resist His will, or is it referring to the Pharaohs of the time who have been hardened by God in their rebellion, just like Pharaoh in his rebellion, in order to accomplish a greater purpose, which in this case would be the crucifixion of Christ for the sins of the world? I think anyone who's been following should be able to tell by now that it's definitely the latter. In other words, just as God hardened Pharaoh in his rebellion to accomplish the first Passover which was just a shadow, He has now hardened Israel and even some Gentiles such as Pilate, in their rebellion, in order to accomplish the real Passover. It's also noteworthy to refer to Jeremiah 18 where the concept of God being the Potter and us being His clay is first introduced long before Paul wrote his letter to the Romans. Paul responds to the objector by asking him who he thinks he is to question God, aka the Potter? The reason Jeremiah 18 is important to remember here is because unlike what Calvinists teach, the clay in Jeremiah 18 actually gets to choose what kind of a pot, the Potter makes with them! Make sure you read this passage for yourself if you haven't already. And if Calvinists do believe in judicial hardening, they too would agree that God never hardens people unless they harden themselves first. Not only that, Paul himself uses a similar language in 2 Timothy 2:20-21, and as we can see there as well, the pots have a choice! In verse 20-21 he says, "In a large house there are articles not only of gold and silver, but also of wood and clay; some are for special purposes and some for common use. Those who cleanse themselves from the latter will be instruments for special purposes, made holy, useful to the Master and prepared to do any good work." Therefore, the objector in Romans 9:19 is not an anti-Calvinist.

22 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? 23 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— 24 even us, whom He also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?

Here Paul is hypothesising about everything he's been saying so far. He says what if God has been patient and has spared the Pharaohs of our time who are prepared in advance, for destruction? In other words, people who God has given up on their salvation because of the hardness of their hearts, yet has spared and hardened them in their rebellion, a concept known as judicial hardening, for accomplishing a greater purpose through them. What if He did this to make Himself known to the objects of His mercy whom He has prepared in advance for glory? Not only people like us from the Jews, but also people like you guys from the Gentiles? Now Calvinists might say, "Hang on a minute, did you just say prepared in advance? Isn't that predestination before the foundation of the world? Isn't that what we believe? You can't say that!" The answer is no. Preparing in advance for glory or destruction does not have to mean predestining individuals before they're even born or have done anything good or bad. That is a non-sequitur which is natural to think if you're a Calvinist or hold to deterministic presuppositions. I would argue that given the concept and doctrine of judicial hardening, the preparing of objects for destruction must take place at a time when the objects are not only born and alive, but also hardened by themselves through their own choosing. This makes sense of passages like Jeremiah 18 as well as 2 Timothy 2:20-21 in both of which the pots are made by the potter through their own choosing!

25 As He says in Hosea: “I will call them ‘my people’ who are not my people; and I will call her ‘my loved one’ who is not my loved one,” 26 and, “In the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ there they will be called ‘children of the living God.’” 27 Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: “Though the number of the Israelites be like the sand by the sea, only the remnant will be saved. 28 For the Lord will carry out His sentence on earth with speed and finality.” 29 It is just as Isaiah said previously: “Unless the Lord Almighty had left us descendants, we would have become like Sodom, we would have been like Gomorrah.”

Paul then quotes from a few passages in the Tanakh to support his claims. I don't think any of these passages are at dispute and in fact, Calvinists often stop reading when they get to verse 25 which I always find amusing, because right after these passages, Paul summarises what he's been saying by his favourite, "What then shall we say?" statement, and his conclusion here which is actually about soteriology, is far from John Calvin's theology, which further proves the point of how wrong Calvinists are in understanding Romans 9. According to Paul's conclusion, the reason that Gentiles are believing the gospel while Israel is rejecting it, is not because God has predestined them to, but rather because of the whole faith vs. works dichotomy which Paul has been tapping into in the previous chapters of his letter to the Romans. He concludes that the people of Israel have stumbled over the stumbling stone as prophesied by Isaiah, because they have been pursuing the Law not by faith, but as if it were by works.

30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone. 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.”