quote:

---

Jn:15:16: Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.

Jn:15:19: If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.

---

quote:

---

No man can come to Me, except the Father which hath sent Me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto Me." None will ever come to Christ, save those who respond to the drawing of the Father's love. But God is drawing all hearts unto Him, and only those who resist His drawing will refuse to come to Christ.(DA 385)

---

quote:

---

The light shining from the cross reveals the love of God. His love is drawing us to Himself. If we do not resist this drawing, we shall be led to the foot of the cross in repentance for the sins that have crucified the Saviour. Then the Spirit of God through faith produces a new life in the soul. The thoughts and desires are brought into obedience to the will of Christ. (DA 176)

---

quote:

---

9:8 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.
9:9 For this [is] the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son.
9:10 And not only [this]; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, [even] by our father Isaac;
9:11 (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;)
9:12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
9:13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
9:14 What shall we say then? [Is there] unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
9:15 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.
9:16 So then [it is] not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy.
9:17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might show my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
9:18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will [have mercy], and whom he will he hardeneth.
9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
9:20 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?
9:21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
9:22 [What] if God, willing to show [his] wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
9:23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory . . Romans

---

quote:

---

The individual who is rescued can say that he did the reasonable thing and allowed himself to be rescued.

---

quote:

---

The election doctrine removes even that claim and ascribes the entire rescue operation to the mercy of God. Even the response of the individual is attributed to the fore-ordained mercy of God.

---

quote:

---

It appears that the election is timeless and eternal and therefore it is within our domain to ‘make our calling and election sure’. We need to explore what that means.

---

quote:

---

First Statement – Romans 9 in Context

Any proper exegesis of a Biblical passage must begin by putting aside our presuppositions and examining the passage within context. By saying this, I want to begin my discussion of Romans 9 by examining two things.

First, of course, we want to see what Paul is saying in Romans 9 within the narrative context of his letter and how this particular passage fits within Paul’s larger thesis that he is presenting to the Romans.

As I do this, I also want to examine the historical context in which the author and the audience dwell and their basic paradigm or view of the covenant community that they would have had as they read this text. A key principle of exegesis is that a text cannot mean something to me that was not intended for the original audience. So we need to examine at least some basic aspects of how the audience would have heard the text and what Paul was getting at within his historical context.

Paul’s Overall Agenda in Romans

As Paul begins his dialogue in the book of Romans, he presents what I would call his primary thesis statement for his argument in Romans 1:16-17 –

16) For I am not ashamed of the gospel; it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 17) For in it the righteousness of God is revealed through faith for faith; as it is written, “The one who is righteous will live by faith.”

I call this an argument, because any logical presentation that has premises, claims, and conclusions (or resolutions) is simply that – a logical argument for a case that needs proving.

In the case of Romans, Paul is dealing with a problem that has manifested itself historically in the church as documented in the book of Acts and which Paul consistently deals with in his letter to other churches. For Paul, there has been a change in the covenant community that has met resistance by the established community. That is, Paul is dealing with the issue of the entry of Gentiles into the covenant community, which he now recognizes as the church.

This is a common theme in the letters of Paul –

1. The letter to the Galatians presents one of Paul earliest arguments for this, culminating in that well known assertion that “there is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:28-29).

2. In his letter to the Ephesians, he tells the Gentile believers that “now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14) For he is our peace; in his flesh he has made both groups into one and has broken down the dividing wall, that is, the hostility between us” (Ephesians 2:13-14).

Why was this an issue for the Jewish believers in Christ? To understand this, we need to understand the Jewish concept of the covenant community. And we need to see this from the Jewish perspective for two reasons:

1. Paul and almost all of the writers of the New Testament were Jewish. He comes out of this tradition and his writing will be consistent with it. It is simply part of his worldview, which has been expanded in Christ.

2. If Christianity is the successor to Judaism in terms of the covenant relationship that humanity has with God, it must be consistent with the concept of the inheritance of the promise that is found in Judaism. Christianity completes Judaism. It does not usurp it.

To understand the argument that Paul will present in Romans and the nature of the conflict he is dealing with, then, it seems we must first delve briefly into the Jewish mindset on how salvation worked.

I like the way N. T. Wright states this (Wright, N. T., The New Testament and the People of God, (Fortress Press, Minneapolis, 1992), 457.) -

'The basic Jewish answer to the question, “How is the creator dealing with evil within his creation?” was of course that he had called Israel.'

While Jewish thought and religious practice varied in the first century, the concept of election held by Jewish writers was equivalent to being in the covenant community with God. That is, God had elected Israel or a sub-group (the remnant) within Israel to carry the promises of God and also as a means of dealing with evil in this world. The covenant people were “saved” from this world by being set apart as the people of God. The work that God started with Adam and Eve was renewed in Abraham.

Individuals in the community were the elect simply because of their inclusion in the covenantal community. Indeed, there are phrases within Jewish writings that place God’s election of a people side by side with phrases emphasizing the free will of individuals. As noted in the scrolls of Qumran, human choice was combined with God’s election and there were “those who volunteer to join the elect of God.” The members of a community were called the elect and community were composed of “all those who had freely devoted themselves.”

While the Essene communities were monastic and extreme, they held to the basic Jewish concept of election. In their mind, voluntary entry into their community was entry into the elect.

(Note: See James Dunn, Jesus Remembered, for addition information on this aspect of Jewish election as a whole.)

This corporate concept also was held by other Jewish sects, such as the Pharisees, and was common to Jewish thought.

Does this perspective translate over into Christianity? Absolutely! In fact, the focus of the New Testament discussions on election and covenant are to show that the covenant community has expanded to include those who are Gentiles.

N. T. Wright puts it this way –

"The early Christians, on the basis of everything we know of them from both within and without the canonical ‘New Testament’, accepted this answer… Israel’s purpose had come to its head in Jesus’ work, … Those who now belonged to Jesus’ people were not identical with ethnic Israel, since Israel’s history had reached its intended fulfillment; they claimed to be the continuation of Israel in a new situation…"

Paul’s thesis statement in Romans 1:16-17 provides us with a simple direct statement of his intent for the entire discourse in this letter. His overall purpose in writing the letter is to provide the case and means for reforming the covenant community. It is within the frameworks of this Jewish covenantal thinking of community and Paul’s thesis that we come to Romans 9.

Now, all arguments have three basic components that must be present:

1) A problem or issue is presented
2) A series of claims or evidences are presented related to that
3) A conclusion is drawn from the claims that relates to the problem at hand

In this section of Scripture, which really encompasses Romans 9 to 11, Paul is going to address the issue of how we are to understand the Jewish people – who were called “God’s elect.” In this passage Paul will examine the thesis that he has presented in the light of the Jewish perception that the covenant is restricted to the descendents of Abraham and those who follow the law. What Paul will show in Romans 9 then is that (to phrase his thesis somewhat differently) –

1. The uniqueness of the Jews as the physical descendents of Abraham is not a criterion for being a member of God’s people.

2. Salvation is open to everyone who has faith.

This first point is presented in Paul’s introduction to this chapter by focusing on the common Jewish belief that descent from Abraham is a requirement of covenant membership. This is found in the first five verses of Romans 9:

1) I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience confirms it by the Holy Spirit— 2) I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3) For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my own people, my kindred according to the flesh. 4) They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; 5) to them belong the patriarchs, and from them, according to the flesh, comes the Messiah, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.

This issue can be summarized as follows:

Paul’s overwhelming concern for the Jews (his own people), to whom belongs the covenant, who are considered by the flesh to be the elect, is that they are lost. Consequently, there appears to be a failure of the covenant for Israel.

Paul then presents a series of claims or evidences (Romans 9:6-29) that ultimately must support the conclusion given by Paul. That conclusion is found in Romans 9.30–10:4 (keep in mind that the chapter divisions are somewhat artificial).

9:30) What then are we to say? Gentiles, who did not strive for righteousness, have attained it, that is, righteousness through faith; 31) but Israel, who did strive for the righteousness that is based on the law, did not succeed in fulfilling that law. 32) Why not? Because they did not strive for it on the basis of faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, 33) as it is written,

“See, I am laying in Zion a stone that will make people stumble, a rock that will make them fall,
and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”

10:1)Brothers and sisters, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved. 2) I can testify that they have a zeal for God, but it is not enlightened. 3) For, being ignorant of the righteousness that comes from God, and seeking to establish their own, they have not submitted to God’s righteousness. 4) For Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.

Paul’s ultimate conclusion is that the Jews as a people – the covenant people – are lost because they did not submit to God’s righteousness, which is found in the faith of Christ (10:3). Those who are saved, whether Jews or Gentiles, are those who have achieved righteousness by faith – by submitting to God’s righteousness found in Christ.

Now, I want you to focus on this conclusion carefully. Nowhere in the conclusion does Paul indicate that individuals are elected to heaven or hell before their response of submitting to God’s righteousness in Christ. Rather Paul is simply stating that Gentiles are saved by faith, and Jews who reject Christ are lost because THEY DID NOT SUBMIT to God’s righteousness in Christ. People are saved because they respond by faith to God’s act in Jesus Christ.

Therefore, having established Paul’s issue and his conclusion to that issue, we can state that this passage is not designed as an argument for pre-faith election of individuals in Christ. Rather the conclusion of Paul in this text specifically states that those who are lost are those who (to quote Paul) “have not submitted to God’s righteousness”. However, those who are saved, as Paul indicates of the Gentiles, are those who (again, quoting Paul) “have attained … righteousness through faith.” In the second case, the response of faith has RESULTED IN the attainment of righteousness, not vice versa.

The various claims or evidences found between Paul’s presentation of the issue and his conclusion (Romans 9:6-29) must OF NECESSITY support this conclusion in order for his argument to be coherent. We cannot examine these in isolation of this conclusion. Rather, they must be examined within context and support the entry of individuals into the covenant by their submission in faith to Christ.

How they support this argument will be presented very briefly in my next statement.
Second Statement – Paul’s Use of Prophecy

In this very brief summary, I would like to examine those claims given by Paul in support of his conclusion.

Paul’s use of Old Testament Passages

Specifically, I would like to focus on Paul’s use of prophecy and Old Testament narrative to support his final conclusion, which I will repeat here –

9:30) What then are we to say? Gentiles, who did not strive for righteousness, have attained it, that is, righteousness through faith; 31) but Israel, who did strive for the righteousness that is based on the law, did not succeed in fulfilling that law. 32) Why not? Because THEY DID NOT STRIVE FOR IT on the basis of faith, but as if it were based on works.

Now let us examine these evidences closer to see how Paul is using the prophetic passages he quotes.

As an ex-Pharisee, Paul would not be ignorant of the prophets’ intentions within these scriptures and he would follow that intent in his analysis of present “Israel’s” condition.

Fundamentally, what Paul is showing is that God is recreating or remolding Israel, the covenant community, based on the work of Jesus Christ. The passages that he chooses then are designed to focus on the work of God with this community, not with the individuals.
Given the timeframe I have, I will not get through all of the passages, but let me suggest that you jot down and examine these five passages:

1. Malachi 1:1-5 – which speaks of God’s favor of Israel over Edom as a people.

We will cover this one in the next post.

2. Exodus 33:1-23 – God starting Israel all over again with Moses because of their disobedience.

3. Exodus 9 – The passage of the hardening of Pharaoh.

4. Jeremiah 18:1-11 – the potter and the clay. This passage speaks of God remolding Israel into another vessel.

5. Hosea 1:1-9 – God choosing a new people to be his own instead of Israel.

Romans 9:14-18 – Moses and Mercy

Let’s look at how Paul uses these passages in Romans 9. To do that, I would like to go to our second evidence, in Romans 9:14-18, where Paul poses the following question:

What then are we to say? Is there injustice on God’s part?

The intent of the question reflects again the issue of the fate of ethnic Israel. If God has made the promise to them through Abraham, then is he being unjust in his decision about how to exercise the promise? We have to affirm with Paul -

By no means! 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.”

Where God’s mercy is going to fall is not based on ethnic origin, but on whom he chooses, which is on those who have faith (as we have seen in Paul’s conclusion).

Now Paul goes on to conclude this claim in an interesting way. He states the conclusion of this claim as follows:

16) So it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God who shows mercy.

I think we have already concluded that the works of the law do not yield righteousness. Justification (or rectification as it should be translated per Louis Martyn) comes by God’s mercy – his merciful response to our faith.

But what does it mean when we say that it is not “by human will”? Does that mean that faith is not sourced in the individual, but comes as some act of God?

I do not think the question here is about the source of faith, but rather whether obedience to the law via the human will yields God’s favor. The answer is simply, “No.” Only faith yields God’s favor, as Paul has already stated.

But what are we to do with Pharaoh? Did not God raise him up simply to destroy him?

17) For the scripture says to Pharaoh, “I have raised you up for the very purpose of showing my power in you, so that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18) So then he has mercy on whomever he chooses, and he hardens the heart of whomever he chooses.

Is this not clear evidence that God does make some people to be “hardened” to destruction?

This is one of the dangers of trying to exegete Romans 9 in isolation of the broader context of Paul’s overall argument found in Romans 9-11. Most serious commentators would shudder at what we are doing in isolating Romans 9 to its own text and insist that we treat all three chapters as a unit. So in the light of this fact, I think we must understand the following about this statement.

1. First, Paul is borrowing this very short text from Exodus 9:16 to show that Israel as a people have been hardened by God. This does not mean all or even specific individuals have been hardened, since some are clearly followers of Christ. He is simply speaking in general terms concerning “his people” as a whole.

2. Second, But we must understand this hardening to be for a purpose, just like Pharaoh’s hardening was for a purpose. The hardening of Pharaoh was so that “God’s name would “resound through all the earth.” God’s hardening of Israel was so that salvation would come to the Gentiles. Romans 11, in speaking of Israel’s hardening poses the following question (11:11):

11) So I ask, have they stumbled so as to fall?

Paul’s answer is an emphatic “By no means!”

”But through their stumbling salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous.”

Their stumbling is for a purpose (very similar to Pharaoh’s).

3. Finally, this hardening is temporary. Paul is very clear that through this process, a return of the Jews will eventually occur – not to the old covenant, but to the new.

“11:12) Now if their stumbling means riches for the world, and if their defeat means riches for Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion mean!”

Now even if we were to presume that the hardening is of individuals, then on the basis of this text in Romans 11, which is part of the overall argument and speaks of the same people, we must conclude that it is not a permanent hardening. For in this passage Paul speaks of the hardening and the inclusion in the covenant of the same people! We must therefore see this as a temporary hardening of a people where Israel becomes an instrument (SKEUOS – vessel is the term used in Romans 9) in God’s hands to accomplish his will by that hardening. In this case, they have become an instrument of wrath, but only for a time.

Romans 9:21 – The Potter and the Clay

We now come to Paul’s final evidence, which is also posed by a question:

19) You will say to me then, “Why then does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?”

Paul has already concluded based on the first two claims that:

1. God’s Word has not failed. God has the right to choose to save people outside of the ethnic Israel.

2. God has hardened Israel to declare his glory outside the ethnic boundaries of Israel. But this hardening is instrumental and temporary. These people are fully redeemable if they come to Christ.
If this is the case, then logically this question would lead to the next – why does God find fault in anyone? Paul’s response is one of those rhetorical techniques of rebutting the question with a short response – Who are you, oh man, to question God?

Now there is often an “AH HA!” given here where people will say, “See, he is speaking of individuals! He is speaking of a man who is questioning God!”

But I think this is misconstruing the text. First, Paul is posing the question in a rhetorical fashion – so that he can answer like this. Second – and forgive me for getting a bit technical here – the way Paul responds is a bit unique. The reference “oh man” is the word ANTHROPOS (from which we get our word anthropology – the study of humanity). It is used in the vocative case, meaning that Paul is using it as a title or proper name. What Paul is re-affirming here is what he has affirmed in the first claim – that human beings as a whole do not dictate how God builds the covenant community.

We then come to that curious argument about the potter and the clay.

Will what is molded say to the one who molds it, “Why have you made me like this?” 21) Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one object for special use and another for ordinary use?

This concept is taken right out of Jeremiah 18:1-8.

1) The word that came to Jeremiah from the LORD: 2) “Come, go down to the potter’s house, and there I will let you hear my words.” 3) So I went down to the potter’s house, and there he was working at his wheel. 4) The vessel he was making of clay was spoiled in the potter’s hand, and he reworked it into another vessel, as seemed good to him.
5) Then the word of the LORD came to me: 6) Can I not do with you, O house of Israel, just as this potter has done? says the LORD. Just like the clay in the potter’s hand, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel. 7) At one moment I may declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, 8) but if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will change my mind about the disaster that I intended to bring on it.

Now follow me here. Paul has been talking about the remolding of the covenant community. When challenged (rhetorically) as to why God would find fault, he states that it is not the place of humanity to challenge what God is doing. To prove his point, he goes back to the Jeremiah prophecy where Israel IS RESHAPED because of their sin into something else – another vessel. The covenant community is remade by the potter as far back as the prophet Jeremiah.

How is it remade? Paul goes back to another prophecy found in Hosea 1, to show that the Gentiles who “were not my people” are now called “my people” and “beloved” (a name reserved for Israel).

26) “And in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’
there they shall be called children of the living God.”

But not only the Gentiles are included. There is a remnant of believers from Israel as well. They are included as well.

27) And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel, “Though the number of the children of Israel were like the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved; 28) for the Lord will execute his sentence on the earth quickly and decisively.” 29) And as Isaiah predicted,
“If the Lord of hosts had not left survivors to us,
we would have fared like Sodom
and been made like Gomorrah.”

So what is Paul’s conclusion for this claim? That God has remolded the covenant community as he saw fit (it is not for us to question why or how he has done this) and it contains both Jews and Gentiles that have the faith of Jesus Christ.

Now the three claims show simply that God is remolding the covenant community by his own will and it includes those beyond the ethnic boundaries of Israel – all those of faith.

My next post will deal with the question of Esau and Jacob.


It could be argued that what I am calling the “evidences” or “claims” can stand alone as statements of faith and that while they fit into the overall argument that Paul is presenting, in themselves they have an internal integrity that allows them to be treated as sub-arguments. Indeed, we can see three such sub-arguments among the claims.

However, they cannot stand independently or be contradictory to the overall argument presented in the text of Romans 9. The conclusion to that argument states that the attainment of righteousness RESULTS FROM the act of faith.

Let me deal with one of these claims at this point – In Romans 9:6, Paul raises the question of whether the word of God has failed.

6) It is not as though the word of God had failed. For not all Israelites truly belong to Israel, 7) and not all of Abraham’s children are his true descendants; but “It is through Isaac that descendants shall be named for you.” 8) This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as descendants. . 9) For this is what the promise said, “About this time I will return and Sarah shall have a son.”

Notice how Paul phrases this. The question is not about whether one person is saved above another. The question being posed is whether God has failed to fulfill the promise to Abraham concerning the covenant and his descendents. Every single book of the Pentateuch (what the Jews would understand as the Law), reiterates the promise of the land to Abraham’s children. It is also found in the histories, the writings, and prophets. Israel was told to look to Abraham as their root. The promise is re-affirmed in Jewish writings during the inter-testamental period as well.

So if salvation and the covenant are open to everyone, there is the appearance that God has not been faithful to his word – his word has failed. What Paul has to do to defend his conclusion is show that the promise is not restricted to those who are physically descended from Abraham. Therefore, he approaches the problem by simply saying that God had not chosen all the descendents of Abraham to carry the promise, but only the children of the promise – Isaac and then Jacob. If the covenant people is the way God is dealing with evil in this world, then God’s promise of Isaac was that his people would serve this function. Paul’s conclusion here is simply that there is a difference between the children of the flesh and the children of the promise – which is the issue at stake here.

Paul goes on and gives a second illustration to prove his point using Jacob and Esau as the example.

10) Nor is that all; something similar happened to Rebecca when she had conceived children by one husband, our ancestor Isaac. 11) Even before they had been born or had done anything good or bad (so that God’s purpose of election might continue, 12) not by works but by his call) she was told, “The elder shall serve the younger.” 13) As it is written,
“I have loved Jacob,
but I have hated Esau.”

Now this text has been misunderstood by many people who believe that God literally hated the individual Esau. Yet if we examine it historically, we will see that this is not the case. The only thing that is said to Rebecca in Genesis 25 is this:

23) And the LORD said to her,
“Two nations are in your womb,
and two peoples born of you shall be divided;
the one shall be stronger than the other,
the elder shall serve the younger.”

Here the statement if very simply – there are two nations that are going to come from Rebecca and the elder brother will server the younger (who will be stronger). That the covenant promise passed to Jacob is not to be disputed. However, we know from Genesis 33 that Jacob and Esau were reconciled and that both received physical blessing from God and from each other. Jacob simply became the bearer for the promise.

The statement “I have loved Jacob, but I have hated Esau” comes approximately 1500 years later and does not refer to the individuals, but to two nations – Israel (then a Persian colony) and Edom. The text is taken from the prophet Malachi and concerns the oppression of post-exilic Israel by the Edomites. God is simply re-affirming that they are the covenant people, and their return to the land is part of his plan for them, and that he will protect them. This statement CANNOT be taken as a foreordained decree of election because it is a consequence of God’s choice, not a premise to that choice. Historically, it comes, in time, 1500 years after the birth of Jacob and Esau.

How then does this statement fit into the argument for Gentile acceptance into the covenant? Paul is simply stating that God has the right to choose people OUTSIDE of their ethnic or nationalistic heritage. While the Edomites were descended from Abraham, they were not part of the covenant people. From an ethnic perspective (which is the way Paul is presenting the argument), in order for Edomites to become part of that covenant, they would have to enter into Israel (or the Jewish people) by the act of circumcision.

Now to go back to Romans 9, as I have shown through this one example, the claims given in the argument are there to show that God does have the power and authority to make choices, and he is not locked into the assumptions made by some in Paul’s implied audience that the covenant is open only to those of physical descent from Abraham. His choices are made based solely on his own authority and not on works or religious rituals of individuals (like circumcision). That is why part of Paul’s conclusion in this section is that “Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for EVERYONE who believes.”

---

quote:

---

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. 32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law.

---

quote:

---

But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.(Rom. 9:21)

---

quote:

---

The light shining from the cross reveals the love of God. His love is drawing us to Himself. If we do not resist this drawing, we shall be led to the foot of the cross in repentance for the sins that have crucified the Saviour. (DA 176)

---