Reading Romans 9 with 70AD in mind - Revisting Abraham's faith reckoned as righteousness (part 7)

I have recently been pondering Romans 9 with the backdrop of 70AD in mind, and a lot of what follows ties into the Revisiting Abraham's faith reckoned as righteousness series (here). If Paul has the destruction of the Temple and destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD in mind - which signifies God formally rejecting the Jews as His chosen/elect people - then that would explain a lot of the pain and concern Paul has in this and the following chapters. The standard "Calvinist" reading of Romans 9 is that of emphasizing God's sovereignty in choosing, but I think that misses the point and takes a too shallow of reading of Paul here. Romans is not concerned about defending God being all powerful, but rather about explaining why God would elect someone just to reject them later on. Consider that 75% of the Bible is focused on God electing the Israelites as His "chosen" people (Deut 7:6), only to suddenly do a reversal in the "last days". God graciously gave the Israelites divine gifts of adoption, covenants, glory, promises, etc (9:1-5), most of which was unmerited by them. Nobody denies that God could have made you born a different race, in a different time, under different circumstances, etc, so it is kind of pointless for Paul to make "unconditional sovereignty" the issue. Similarly, I don't think Paul is suggesting God chooses for purely hidden reasons, but rather that God chooses for very strategic reasons. In fact, I have come to see the "thesis" verse of Romans 9 to be in verse 8, where Paul says, "those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God, but the children of the promise are reckoned as the seed," which I believe means those who are born of purely natural or biological means are secondary to those who are born of special or supernatural means. With this in mind, let's take a look at Paul's actual examples. 

First, Paul brings up Isaac versus Ismael. We know that Ishmael was firstborn and born by natural human relations, but God had Isaac in mind as the blessed chosen linage which would bring about the "Seed" or Messiah. Paul emphasizes this same lesson especially in Galatians 4:21-31, so it would be reasonable to see the same lesson elsewhere in Paul's writings. I believe this is also taught in Romans 4:1-4, where Paul begins by asking about Abraham being father "according to the flesh" (4:1b), and "justified by works, but not before God" (4:2), because Ishmael was born "according to the flesh" (i.e. Abraham's sleeping with Hagar), making it seem like Abraham had achieved by human means the promised heir of Genesis 15:5-6. This producing of Ishmael was thus a "justification by works" in the sight of men (4:2a), because in the human calculation they reckoned Ishmael to be the promised seed heir...but not in the sight of God (4:2b), since God had in mind Isaac instead to be the promised heir or at least chosen lineage. Thus, Paul gives a human analogy, whereby when a person works a job he is rightly entitled a wage (4:4a), but how much more blessed is it to receive a gift beyond what your job can get you? Abraham could produce a natural heir (working wages), but trusting in God and receive a supernatural blessing, such as Isaac coming from a barren Sarah, that's beyond natural or normal transactions (4:4b). Similarly, the Mosaic Covenant promised health and wealth for faithfulness to it, but these were earthly wages, whereby being a Believer in the higher things of life comes with the promise of forgiveness of sins and heaven. Thus, Paul is trying to condition us to start thinking in a spiritual way rather than the long time "fleshy" way of earthly blessings. 

Second, this sets up Paul for a second example, noting the first few words he uses: 

10 And not only this, but also when Rebecca had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac 11 (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), 12 it was said to her, “The older shall serve the younger.” 13 As it is written, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.”

This is a famous juncture where people get hung up and think the "unconditional sovereignty" of God is the lesson here, but that's not Paul's thesis of verse 8 we are looking at. The language of "and not only [Isaac/Ishmael] but also" with Jacob and Esau sounds a lot like Romans 4:6 where Paul says "and not only, but also" with regards to David giving an equivalent example as Abraham. The language of "and not only, but also" used here would surely suggest a second example of the "not of the flesh but of the spirit" type situation. So how does Jacob and Esau fit the "not of the flesh but of the Spirit" type of example? Clearly, Esau would be the "of the flesh" type and Jacob would be the miraculous or spiritual type here in this example. Yes, Esau was born first and thus entitled to the firstborn rights and elect lineage to bring about the Messiah, but that doesn't explain the "not of the flesh" aspect which we are looking for in Jacob. In the Ishmael-Isaac example, Isaac was clearly born in a miraculous/spiritual manner, so I think we must look for the same thing here with Jacob. I have not seen anyone suggest this, though maybe they have, but I believe I found the answer to this. 

When Paul says here in 9:10 that "Rebecca had conceived by one," the Greek here indicates it was "one act of intercourse," and thus I believe the miracle consists of God producing twins. This is the first example of twins in the Bible, and one of the rare Biblical twins we are told about, so it is significant. Just like with Sarah being barren, so also was Rebecca, until Isaac prayed for her. Unlike with Abraham and Jacob, who both had other women, with Isaac we are told that he didn't have other women and that Isaac didn't get married until 40 (Gen 25:20-21), and it wasn't until he was 60 that the twins were born (Gen 25:26). This suggests, and others have said this, that Isaac was sexually pure (not turning to concubines) and that Isaac only rarely had sexual relations. Thus the "Rebecca had conceived by one [act of intercourse]" means Isaac had limited sexual interactions and intended that son to be the promised heir, or chosen lineage. Thus, the miracle or Spirit involvement was God put in a second unexpected son, indicating one was a miraculous event (Jacob) to get around the natural product (Esau), and this was the one God chose to carry the lineage. If this is the case, then Paul is definitely not concerned about "sovereignty" but rather about God creating a specific lineage for God's strategic purposes, even though in the eyes of humans it looks otherwise. 

Thus, we are told "Isaac loved Esau," for Isaac enjoyed eating of Esau's impressive hunting skills (Gen 25:28a), but that Rebecca loved Jacob (28b). This sounds similar to Abraham being justified by works in the sight of men, for Abraham rejoiced in Ishmael for thirteen years, thinking Ishmael was the chosen lineage (Gen 17:18). Similarly, Isaac loved Esau for all his impressive masculine traits, which Jacob did not have (Gen 25:27-28). It wasn't until the sons grew into their older years that it was revealed Esau was not who God had in mind (ie "but not before God"). The theme is not God predestining to Heaven or Hell, as this language is absent here, and it goes against Paul's point of God electing before they had done "evil," suggesting that God wasn't even electing between two sinners. God wanted the younger son, and though we aren't specifically told why God wanted younger, there are hints elsewhere at why God chooses based on being younger. For strategic storytelling purposes, God often chooses the weak, the poor, the smaller, etc, to bring about His Plans, because that helps humble those who are physically strong, physically gifted, physically impressive, and teaches that these aren't what is important to God (1 Cor 1:27; Deut 7:7). This sets up the stage for God eventually going with the less fortunate Gentiles to be His chosen people, which Paul says was done specifically "to make Israel jealous," as in God can go with the less appealing to stir up healthy jealousy in the Jews to get them to convert (Rom 10:19; 11:11; 11:14). Surely the Esau-Jacob example (and Ishmael-Isaac example) establishes a clear "jealousy theme", thus a sort of foreshadowing. The language of "X have I loved, buy Y have I hated" sounds more harsh than it actually is, and is instead a well-established Hebrew idiom for someone preferring one thing over another, but not literally hating them (see Gen 29:30-31; Deut 21:15-17; Luke 14:26). Even within most families, the parents will prefer certain children over the rest. In this situation, for a long time it was thought by the Jews that God  truly "hated" the Gentiles, which Paul is having to constantly fight against and why Paul is constantly trying to make the Gentiles look good as proof that the Gospel can transform even the worst of people.

Furthermore, many of the examples throughout Genesis, there was a problem of key figures sleeping with foreign women, or not fulfilling their lineage duty, which could convey a sort of "contaminated promised linage" or blocking of God's plans. Thus Abraham slept with the Egyptian slave Hagar, and Esau "married Egyptian wives," and and thus God had to keep steering the Salvation History story as it unfolds, while the main characters didn't realize it. From the Garden of Eden onward, Satan has made it a main goal to disrupt God's plans, especially the Incarnation by having main characters sin. Thus, if Adam and Eve could fall, making humanity sinful, perhaps that could make it so the Son of God would no longer want nor be able to become incarnate later on. Or if Satan could get the Israelites to go apostate, then God's plans for the Messiah to come through them could be disrupted. Or if Satan could convince Peter to protect Jesus from persecution, then perhaps Jesus' mission could be thwarted ("get behind me Satan"). In looking at Romans 9 from this manner, we see that God is a masterful story teller, providential, crafty, creative, impressive in not getting thwarted. This is far beyond a raw flex of "sovereignty," and really misses Paul point. 

This leads us to Paul's next examples of "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy" and the "whomever he decides to, he hardens", with the leading prompt being "Is there unrighteousness on God's part?". As with the prior examples, people typically think Paul's lesson here is that of pure sovereignty being flexed, but again that seems to miss Paul's point. The terminology of "unrighteousness" here does not refer to legal injustice, but rather the moral prerogative of fulfilling His promises. If God specifically elected the Israelites and promised to thoroughly bless them, it would seem like going back on His promises to now be rejecting them. That is a far more pertinent issue in Paul's mind, especially with the backdrop of 70AD in Paul's mind as he's saying this. God was merciful on His people at various times, when they didn't deserve it, such as the Golden Calf. This is because such national sins constituted a disqualification of sorts, yet God established ways to keep the Messianic lineage going. And in fact, God didn't just show mercy, but in fact continued to add blessings up the Israelites, from desert wanders to a Davidic Kingdom, to even a word famous Temple (which stood for 500 years between 538BC-33AD). In other words, God built them up to an impressive degree. Why would God build up and bless just to tear down? Paul has an an analogy here: "God said to Pharaoh, for this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you". In other words, just because God blesses with impressive gifts, such as Egypt's might, that build up could be to lead to a more impressive or scary crashing down. God does not build up most of the "reprobate" nor is God's power displayed in most of them who fall, thus this analogy really only makes sense if Paul is "subtweeting" about Israel and 70AD. 

The modern euphemism called "subtweeting" refers to posting on Twitter a mockery or critical tweet about someone you're against but without using their name. This way you can shame someone without being guilty of slander or to more gently criticize them since they don't take it as a personal named attack. Paul often speaks against the Jews using such indirect language, such as saying "the weak person eats vegetables," so as to softly criticize Jewish obsession with kosher eating as opposed to the liberty Christians have (Rom 14:2). With these examples, Paul is trying to convince the Jews that something very bad is coming upon them soon, namely 70AD. 

With these themes in mind, we can now approach the potter analogy that Paul uses, "Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?" As with the previous examples, we can safely say the point is not to show God flexing His "unconditional sovereignty," but rather about God creatively writing history to choose people at different times for different ends. The analogy of a potter wouldn't even make sense if the potter was making vessels to do sinful things, nor making clay pots just to destroy them, nor that the clay is equally "contaminated" with Original Sin. Rather, the language of "honor and dishonor" is another Hebrew idiom meaning special vs regular usage. Just like how there is a China Plates for special dinner versus regular dinner dishes (Paul uses this exact language and analogy in 2 Tim 2:20-21). God selects "His People" to be the special pottery, which can lead to prideful behavior against the regular pottery (e.g. Gentiles). 

Thus we see the apogee of Paul's argument revealed:

22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

What are these "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction"? Many would mistakenly read this as God just wants to flex by sending most of humanity to hellfire, but that doesn't fit with what Paul is getting at. The Jews heartily embraced their supremacist mindset that most of humanity, that is the Gentiles, were going to hell and that God didn't care about them. So Paul is actually doing a reversal on this mentality. The Jews thought the Gentiles were sinners, that the Gentiles were "vessels of wrath fitted for destruction," and good for nothing. In reality, with 70AD in Paul's mind, the preparation for destruction is the Temple, and God having reached His limits of patience with the Jews, that is much longsuffering throughout the OT and now the NT. Meanwhile, God had endured much longsuffering with the Gentiles, mercifully holding off wiping them out so that they could have a chance at salvation, to share in the glory of faithful Israel, "not only of the [faithful] Jews, but also of the [believing] Gentiles".

Thus the prophets foretell that God would one day call the Gentiles "His people" (Rom 9:25-26), while most of Israel would go apostate, leaving only a remnant of Jews, which are those who accepted Jesus (Rom 9:27; 9:29). Modern ears often fail to understand how crazy this kind of talk would sound to the ancient Jews. In 9:28, Paul says: "He will finish the work and cut it short in righteousness, because the Lord will make a short work upon the earth." This again makes the most sense if Paul has in mind the destruction of the Temple in three short years of 67-70AD, which is about 15 years after Romans was written in (52ish). Recall that Jesus says that tribulation will be so bad that God will have to "cut it short" for the sake of preserving the faithful Jews (Matt 24:22). 

And what is the key point of the dispute? The acceptance of Jesus, as Paul concludes the chapter on that very note: "As it is written: “Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling stone and rock of offense, And whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.” (Rom 9:33) Jesus is most certainly the stumbling stone triggering all these new problems the Jewish identity must now deal with. It is interesting to note that much of the same language we've seen in Romans 9 also appears in 1 Peter 2:4-10, especially here:

9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. 10 Once you were not a people, but now you are God's people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.

Notice that Peter uses the elect/chosen language referring to Gentile Christians here, implying the Jews are no longer the chosen race. Peter then says the Gentile Christians are the royal priesthood, as if to say the Temple is now defunct, requiring 70AD to come. And Peter says these Gentiles in past times did not receive mercy, but now have received mercy, as Paul says as well. This means God formerly did not show favor and did not extend salvation in the same manner as He does now. 

I'm sure some people will try to find reasons to read something else into Romans 9, especially those trying to preserve the "unconditional sovereignty" thesis, but I think I have shown the chapter reads far more coherently with the 70AD impending doom thesis. Again, nobody ever disputed that God was almighty, but they did dispute why God chose one race, especially to reject it later on. The sovereignty reading doesn't make much sense in explaining the "he now rejects those he formerly unconditionally sovereignly chose" statements here and especially chapters 10-11. This leads to me also reconsidering the terminology of "last days" as it is used in the Bible. It is a common mistake to think that the "last days" generally refers to the very last days of the world, as some Protestants have predicted we are only a few short years/months from the Second Coming. The more reasonable interpretation is that the "last days" refers to the final dispensation of world history, the Christian Era, from the time of Jesus all the way until today. But an even more likely interpretation of "last days" is the last days of the Mosaic Covenant Era, as in the Temple is going to be destroyed in 70AD, which is only 30ish years from the time of the Ascension (and fifteen years from the writing of Romans). If all the Apostles were talking of the "last days" in this manner of impending doom of 70AD, then things make a lot more sense (e.g. In Acts 2:16-21, Peter cites Joel 2, especially 2:28-32, where after Pentecost the last days will lead up to the destruction of the Temple).