Grace
Theological Journal 2.1 (Spring 1981) 115-29
Copyright © 1981 by Grace
Theological Seminary. Cited with permission.
PAUL'S USE OF THE
OLD TESTAMENT IN
ROMANS 9:25-26
JOHN A. BATTLE, JR.
A number of
premillennial writers are now agreeing with amillen-
nialists that a literal
interpretation of OT prophecies concerning
is not justified. They claim that the NT interprets these
prophecies in a
"spiritualized" sense, applying
them to the present church, and conclude
that
the OT provides no proof of a future national conversion of
of a future millennial
kingdom. The quotations of Hosea in Rom
are
cited as a primary example. Most who
hold to the literal interpretation
of prophecy assume that
Paul quotes Hosea by way of analogy only,
without denying a future
fulfillment for
quotes Hosea literally and has
specifically in mind
unbelief and future conversion.
The author prefers the second alternative
and
sees evidence for this interpretation not only in the context of Hosea,
but also in the context of
Romans
9. The background and contexts of the other OT passages cited in
Romans 9 confirm the suggested interpretation. It is concluded
that
the literal interpretation
of OT prophecy not only agrees with Paul’s
normal hermeneutics but helps
greatly in the exegesis of this particular passage.
* * *
Today it is recognized more than ever that one's theology as a
whole is
closely related to one's
hermeneutics. This fact especially comes to the fore in
the study of
eschatology. For decades the dictum has held true that amillennialism
requires an allegorical or
"spiritual" interpretation of biblical prophecy (especially
in the OT), while premillennialism
springs from a more literal interpretation of
those prophecies.
Therefore, it comes as a surprise that a premillennial writer
would favor a
spiritualized
interpretation of OT prophecy. Yet, several premillennialists have
done this, the most prominent being George
Eldon Ladd of Fuller Theological
Seminary. In an interesting
116 GRACE THEOLOGICAL
JOURNAL
book on the millennium, in which four
theologians debate each other,1 Ladd
declares himself to be a
premillennialist, but on the basis of only two NT
passages, Rev 20: 1-6, and to a
lesser extent, I Cor 15:23-26.2 Similarly, his
belief in the future national
conversion of
passage, Rom 11:26.3
To support his eschatology Ladd refuses to use the
scores of OT passages dealing
with the messianic kingdom and its blessings.
He believes
that literal interpretation of many of these passages may be
possible, but that it is not
required; he claims that in several cases the NT
itself interprets OT
prophecies in a nonliteral or "spiritualizing" sense. Ladd
concludes that the OT cannot be
used confidently to describe the future
millennial kingdom, or even to
prove its existence:4
The fact is that the New Testament
frequently interprets Old Testament
prophecies in a way not suggested by the Old
Testament context.
This clearly establishes the principle
that the "literal hermeneutic" does
not work.
The Old Testament did not clearly foresee
how its own prophecies were
to be fulfilled. They were fulfilled in ways
quite unforeseen by the Old
Testament itself and
unexpected by the Jews. With
regard to the first
coming of Christ, the Old Testament is
interpreted by the New Testament…..
A nondispensational eschatology forms its theology from the
explicit
teaching of the New Testament. It confesses that
it
cannot be sure how the Old Testament prophecies
of the end are to be
fulfilled.5
THE ARGUMENT SURROUNDING
ROM 9:25-26
To demonstrate that the NT handles the OT in a nonliteral
fashion, Ladd cites four
primary examples: Hos 11: 1 in Matt
7-8 in Matt
8:17 and Acts 8:32-33; Hos 2:23 and 1:10 in Rom
1The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views (ed. Robert G. Clouse;
Downers
Grove: InterVarsity, 1977); the four scholars are G. E. Ladd
(historic premillennialism),
H. A. Hoyt (dispensational premillennialism), L. Boettner
(postmillennialism), and
A. A. Hoekema (amillennialism).
2Ibid., 32-39.
3Ibid., 27-29.
4Ibid., 20-27.
5Ibid., 20, 23, 27; italics his. It should be
noted that many nondispensational
writers disagree with Ladd's position and seek to
follow a grammatical-historical
approach to both the OT and the NT.
6Ibid., 20-27. Ladd could have cited also Amos
9:11-12, quoted in Acts 15:16-17,
a
key passage for those arguing for "spiritualized" exegesis; elsewhere
he does apply it
to the present age, A Theology
of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974)
355. For a more thorough discussion of
this passage from the amillennial
out Rom
passage Paul quotes the OT:
"Even as it says in Hosea, 'I will call
them my people who were not my people, and her
beloved who was
not beloved; and it will be in the place
where it was said to them,
"You
are not my people," there they will be called sons of the living
God.'"
The OT verses quoted by Paul, Hos
future restoration of
of estrangement and judgment caused by
commentators recognize
that Hosea has literal, national
view-particularly, the ten northern
tribes. Furthermore, the predicted
blessings seem to fit perfectly
with the future millennium. Hosea
mphasizes
people, the objects of his
mercy.
But in Rom 9:25-26 Paul quotes these verses in a surprising
manner. V 24 speaks of
"us whom he has called, not from the Jews
only but also from the Gentiles,"
indicating Christians of his day.
Paul then
continues, "as also it says in Hosea," and
quotes these
verses. Many believe that here
he equates the Christian church with
the promised restoration of
pretation of Hosea's prophecy.
Such is Ladd's conclusion:
Paul
deliberately takes these two prophecies about the future of
and applies them to the church. The church,
consisting of Jews and
Gentiles,
has become the people of God. The prophecies of Hosea are
fulfilled in the Christian
church. If this is a "spiritualizing hermeneutic"
so be it. ...It is clearly what the New
Testament does to the Old
Testament prophecies.
Obviously, if Ladd's exegesis is correct, those who hold to a
consistent grammatical-historical
interpretation of Scripture must
modify their position. On the
other hand, the exegesis of the Romans
passage itself must stand
careful scrutiny, especially since issues of
hermeneutics and
theology are involved. This writer believes that a
careful examination of both
passages in their related contexts will
reveal a basic underlying
unity and that a consistent literal interpretation
of Hosea's prophecy is the key to
understanding Paul's meaning in
Romans 9.
_________________________________________________________
viewpoint, see O. T. Allis, Prophecy and the
Church (
and
Reformed, 1955) 145-50, and more recently, A. A. Hoekema, The Bible
and the Future (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979) 209-10.
For an excellent
treatment favoring literal exegesis, see A. A.
MacRae, "The Scientific
Approach to the OT," BSac 110 (1953) 313-16.
7This passage is discussed by Ladd, Meaning of the Millennium,
23-24.
118 GRACE THEOLOGICAL
JOURNAL
VARIOUS APPROACHES
TO ROM 9:25-26
Commentators and theologians who seriously discuss this
passage tend to hold one of
three opinions: (1) Paul actually changes
Hosea's meaning
in its OT context to make the prophecy refer
directly and exclusively to his
own times, (2) Paul only uses Hosea's
prophecy as an example or
analogy, applying its principle to his own
times, or (3) Paul employs Hosea's prophecy
literally, with the same
meaning as that evident in the
OT context. Within each approach
there are several variations. Each of these
approaches will be
summarized below.
Changing
Hosea’s meaning
Many look at the seeming discrepancy between Hosea and Paul,
"take the bull by the horns," and declare that Paul
simply changed or
"transformed" Hosea's prophecy. On the critical side,
commentators
often accuse Paul of misusing the OT for his
own ends. For example,
C. H. Dodd
has written:
The verses which follow are extremely difficult in the Greek.
...When
Paul, normally a clear thinker, becomes obscure, it usually means
that
he is
embarrassed by the position he has taken up. It is surely so here.
...It is rather strange that Paul has not observed that this
prophecy
referred to
strange because it would have fitted so admirably the doctrine of the
restoration of
particular prophecy is ill-chosen, it is certainly true that the prophets
did
declare the calling of the Gentiles.8
Likewise
Ernst Kasemann sees Paul disregarding the original sense of
Hosea:
As is his custom Paul understands the sayings as eschatologically
oriented oracles without considering their original sense. ...With
great
audacity he takes the promises to
Gentile-Christians.9
Opposed to this cavalier treatment of Pauline exegesis, many
conservative writers
still feel that Paul basically transforms or
"deepens" Hosea's meaning to refer to the church of his
day.
Although, as
mentioned above, G. E. Ladd takes this approach, it is
8C. H. Dodd, The
Epistle to the Romans (MNTC;
Brothers, 1932) 159-60.
9E. Kasemann, Commentary on Romans,
trans. and ed. from 4th
Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980) 274.
found most frequently among postmillennialists
or amillennialists,
who naturally favor a more "spiritualizing"
hermeneutic. H. N.
Ridderbos,
for example, calls this passage "a transition in interpretation."10
A number of exegetical points in Romans 9 -11 lend support to
this approach; the following seem to be the
most important:
1) The Gentiles are mentioned immediately before and after
Paul's quotations (vv 24, 30).
2) The xxxx at the beginning of v 27 could well contrast the
tatus of Jews in v 27 with that of Gentiles in vv 25-26.
3) Peter paraphrases Hos 2:23, referring it to his Christian
readers (I Pet
4) The "vessels of wrath" of v 22 seem to be unbelieving
Jews,
while the "vessels of mercy" of v 23
are identified as believing Jews
and Gentiles. Such a contrast is carried out
in Rom 9:30-10:4.
5) The structure citing blessings on the "non-people" in
vv
25-26,
followed by judgment against
preference for the
"non-nation" in 10:19-20, followed by the judgment
against
6) Paul, by the term "jealousy" in
own ministry in the church to the
eschatological promises made to
9-11 seems
to presuppose its relevance for his own day.
Taken together, these arguments give a powerful impetus to
many theologians, who conclude that Paul in
some way changes the
meaning of Hosea's prophecy
from that which is apparent in its
original context. Of course, the
major drawback of this viewpoint is
its conclusion regarding hermeneutics: while
the NT is to be
interpreted (more or less)
literally, the OT is not. Many amillennialists
expand this principle
to all OT prophecy and thereby deny any
future fulfilment
of these prophecies for the nation of
An
argument from analogy
Many commentators, desiring to maintain the integrity of
Hosea's
meaning, and yet convinced that Paul is speaking of
Gentiles,
see in this passage an application of Hosea's prophecy,
but not its total Fulfilment.
Charles Hodge expresses this view well:
10H. Ridderbos, Paul, An Outline of His Theology, trans. J. R. de Witt
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975) 340.
11On the other hand, Kasemann, Commentary
on Romans, 274,
contrasts
Rom 9:25 with Jub 2: 19, "Behold, I will separate unto Myself
a people from among all the peoples, ...and I will sanctify them
unto Myself
as My people, and will bless
120 GRACE
THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
The
difficulty with regard to this passage is, that in Hosea it evidently
has reference not to the heathen, but to the
ten tribes. Whereas, Paul
refers it to the Gentiles.
...This difficulty is sometimes gotten over by
giving a different view of the
apostle's object in the citation, and
making it refer to the
restoration of the Jews. But this interpretation is
obviously at variance with the
context. It is more satisfactory to say,
that the ten tribes were in a heathenish
state, relapsed into idolatry,
and, therefore, what was said of them, is of
course applicable to
others in like circumstances,
or of like character. ...This method of
interpreting and
applying Scripture is both common and correct. A
general truth, stated in
reference to a particular class of persons, is to
be considered as intended to apply to all
those whose character and
circumstances are the
same, though the form or words of the original
enunciation may not be applicable
to all embraced within the scope of
the general sentiment.12
Likewise,
Sanday and Headlam say that "
which underlies these words, that God can take
into His covenant
those who were previously cut off from it, to
the calling of the
Gentiles.”13 This approach is followed by Herman A. Hoyt in his
reply to Ladd’s argument:
In passage after passage Ladd insists that the New Testament is
interpreting the Old when the New Testament is simply applying a
principle found in the Old Testament (Hos. 11:1 with Mt.
references identify the church and
saved is
wholly gratuitous. ...It makes such application merely for the
purpose of explaining something that is true of both.14
This approach to Rom 9:25-26 certainly has its advantages. It
strives to do justice to
Hosea's prophecy in its context, and it also
recognizes the apparent force of
the context in Romans concerning
the conversion of Gentiles. In addition, the
introductory formula,
"even as (w[j) it says in Hosea," fits well with an illustration or
analogy
and does not demand that it be the strict fulfillment
of the prophecy.
________________________________________________________
them; ...and they shall be My people and I will be their God."
The Jubilees passage
refers exclusively to national
109 and 105 B.C., APOT
(1913) 2, 6.
12C. Hodge, Commentary on the
Epistle to the Romans (rev. ed., 1886;
reprinted;
13W. Sanday and A. C. Headlam, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on
the
Epistle to the Romans
(ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1902) 264; similarly,
J. Murray, The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT; Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965) 38.
14Meaning of the
Millennium, 42-43.
In spite of its attraction, however, the argument for analogy has
some drawbacks. For one thing, Paul normally
interprets OT prophecies
literally, as will be discussed
later in this article. The few examples of
his analogical use of scripture normally come
from non-predictive
portions (as Ps 19:4 in Rom
10:18, or Deut 25:4 in 1 Tim 5:18).
There remains a greater difficulty with this interpretation. The
analogy between the ten tribes
and the Gentiles breaks down at a
critical point. Hodge mentioned
that an analogy is appropriate for
"all those whose character and circumstances are the
same." Certainly
one could identify the "character"
of the idolatrous ten tribes with
that of the Gentiles. Paul no doubt was amazed
by God's mercy
revealed both in God's promises
for adulterous
saving the heathen. But the
"circumstances" of the two groups are
quite different. Romans 1-2 describes the
Gentiles' relation to God as
founded upon creation and
conscience, whereas Romans 2-3 describes
the Jews' relation to God as also one of promise
and covenant. The
covenants with Abraham, Isaac,
and Jacob have placed even the
unbelieving Jews in a unique
position in the world (cf. Rom
is because of these covenants that the OT
predicts
(e.g., Lev
26:40-45; Deut 4:29-31). And Paul himself in Romans 9-11
stresses that this restoration
stems from God's special mercy and
covenant-faithfulness to
this major respect Paul does not view the
present salvation of
Gentiles as analogous to the promised future salvation of national
Identity
of meaning
As quoted above, Charles Hodge has said, "This difficulty is
sometimes gotten over by giving a
different view of the apostle's
object in the citation, and
making it refer to the restoration of the
Jews." Actually, very few
commentators have proposed this solution;
as Hodge went on to say, "This
interpretation is obviously at variance
with the context," Nevertheless, one who
has ventured this approach
is Alva J, McClain, who says in his popular
commentary:
A lot of folks think
that this passage refers to the Gentiles. It does
not.
They think Paul made a mistake and quoted from the Old
Testament something that belonged to Jews and applied it to the
Gentiles. He is talking about
was not
my people." God cast
mercy. 15
15A. J. McClain, Romans: The Gospel of God’s Grace (ed. H. A.
Hoyt;
122 GRACE THEOLOGICAL
JOURNAL
Unfortunately,
the brief and popular style of McClain's book prevents
a clarification and defense of this
statement. Its major difficulty, as
Hodge has
noted, is the context in Romans 9, which seems to be
speaking about the present,
largely Gentile church. Yet this approach
has the distinct asset of taking Hosea's
prophecy at face value and
maintaining complete harmony
between Hosea and Paul. This writer
believes that the context in
Romans 9 can, and indeed does, fit
together best with this interpretation.
Before proceeding to defend this approach, it would be good to
note another variation of it. Some
commentators believe that Paul
used Hosea in the original sense, but that the
original sense of Hosea
included the salvation of
Gentiles. George N. H. Peters, on one hand,
sees believing Gentiles as incorporated into
the
While Romans
11 certainly supports this approach, it seems that the
contexts of Romans 9 and of
Hosea 1-2 refer more directly to
national Israel-largely unbelieving.
On the other hand, several writers
have seen the Gentile conversion already
foretold in Hosea itself,
from the standpoint of OT exegesis. William
Kelly sees Gentile
salvation in Hos 1:10, on the
analogy of Isa 65:1-2.17 J. Barton Payne
notes that, in the OT, "believing Gentiles
may be identified simply as
Israelites,
inseparable from God's people," citing Isa 44:5; 56:3, along
with Hos
exegesis and theology, but seems
out of harmony with the context of
Hosea, where
the woman who was restored is the same
woman who
was married and who went astray-i.e.,
national
seen, Paul's quotations need not be construed
as referring to Gentile
conversions in Paul's day.
NATIONAL
This writer does not claim to prove dogmatically that Paul is
referring to national
that this interpretation is a viable option
which deserves serious
consideration. Several
weighty arguments favor a literal use of
prophecy in these verses.
16G. N.
H. Peters, The Theocratic Kingdom (3 vols.; 1884; reprinted;
17W.
Kelly, Notes on the Epistle of Paul. the Apostle, to the Romans
(1873;
reprinted;
18 J.
B. Payne, The Theology of the Older Testament (
Zondervan,1962) 477-78.
Paul’s
normal hermeneutics
Recently Paul's epistles have been subjected to increased study,
especially since the advent of the
now is thought that Paul's hermeneutics
resembles that of Palestinian
much more than that of Hellenistic Judaism.
Richard Longenecker
.has put it
this way:
Midrashic
exegetical methods are prominent in the Pauline letters.
In fact, it is midrashic exegesis more than
pesher or allegorical
exegesis that characterizes the
apostle's hermeneutical procedures.19
Longenecker
would not conclude that Paul never "Christianizes" the
OT, yet for
him Paul's starting-point is midrashic exegesis.
In the majority of his Old Testament citations, Paul adheres to
the
original sense of the passage. Or, if he extends it, it is possible to
understand his rationale if we grant him the Jewish presuppositions of
"corporate solidarity" and
"historical correspondences" and the
Christian presuppositions of "eschatological fulfillment"
and
"messianic presence.”20
Those who
favor the spiritualizing approach in Rom 9:25-26 will say
that here Paul uses the Christian
presupposition of "eschatological
fulfillment," while those who
favor the argument from analogy might
say he is using the Jewish presupposition of
"historical correspondences."
On the other
hand, his usual method is to "adhere to the original sense
of the passage"-in this case, seeing
Within midrashic exegesis there is a variety of possible
interpretations.
The
so-called seven rules of Hillel21 would allow one to interpret the
OT
as an analogy (Rule 5, "general and
particular": a particular rule may be
expanded into a general
principle)22, as well as with the
19R.
Eerdmans, 1975)
125-26. Longenecker effectively argues with E. E. Ellis and others,
showing that there are very few if any real examples of
allegorical or pesher exegesis
in Paul's epistles
(118-32).
20Ibid., 121. Cf. his earlier book Paul,
Apostle of
Row, 1964) 63, where he sees Paul employing “charismatic
interpretation,” ie., “the
letter
as interpreted by Christ through the
Spirit."
21 Biblical Exegesis,
32-38; for a more technical treatment, see
The History of the
Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, rev. and ed. G. Vermes,
F.
Millar, and M. Black (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark,
1979), 2. 343-45.
22However, this rule was used more with legal texts than with
prophecies.
124
GRACE
THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
“grammatical-historical”
method (e.g., Rule 7, “context”: the meaning is
established by its context). In
this regard, it should be noted that
Paul often
cites the OT with its own context in view (e.g., Rom 4:3,9-
11; 9:7-9;
ruled out by context, would be in harmony with
Paul's normal
exegesis of the OT.
Background
of the quotations
Paul's argument throughout Romans 9 is built on the OT. In
vv 6-13 Paul draws from Genesis and Malachi
to trace out God's
election of
Exodus to
demonstrate the sovereignty of that election and the role
of the non-elect in relation to the elect in
God's program. In the rest
of the chapter Paul quotes several times
from the prophets Isaiah and
Hosea, with
perhaps an allusion to Jeremiah, to show the results of
this election for
The remarkable thing about these quotations from the prophets
is that, with the one exception of Isa 45:9,23
every quotation comes
from the same period in
Assyrian conquest. This
conquest came in three major stages: Tiglath-
pileser III in 732 B.C., Shalmaneser V and Sargon II in 722 B.C. These
quotations are charted below:
verse in Romans 9 passage quoted
20 Isa
29:16; 45:9
25 Hos
2:23
26 Hos
1:10
27-28 Isa 10:22-23
29 Isa
1:9
33 Isa 8:14; 28:16
It is more significant that in each case the Assyrian judgment of
Isa 29:16
appears to be looking forward to the Assyrian siege of
Throughout all these prophecies runs the same theme:
rebels against the Lord; God
raises up
pride; God restores
the passages quoted in vv 25-26 and 27-29
follow this pattern in their
23Conservatives
usually date the writing of Isaiah 40-66 between 701 and 686 B.C.
own context; note especially Hos 1:6-11;
2:9-14, 19-23; 3:4-5; Isa 1:5-9;
5:20-30;
7:17-20; 8:4; 10:5-27. With this background in view, it
appears that the quotations in
Rom
phenomenon: the present but
temporary status of
largely unbelieving,
disenfranchised, and under judgment by foreign
nations. In this light vv 25-26
emphasize neither
restoration nor the Gentiles' place
in the church, but rather the
prophetic forecast of
having received mercy,” “not
my people.”
Similarly, the quotations in v 33 fit beautifully with Paul's
intention. In Isaiah 8 Judah
falls before
northern kingdom of
same principle, which is still at work in his
nation.
present state because she
trusted in her own plots and schemes, rather
than in God's mercy and deliverance (Isa 8:6,
12; 28:15). For this
reason God judged her by means
of
17).
13, 16-17;
28:16-19). Not only in Rom
chapter the OT context provides
valuable direction in elucidating
Paul's
meaning.
"Vessels
of wrath" as
It is often assumed that the “vessels of wrath” in v 22 are the
unbelieving Jews as in vv 6 and 31,
while the “vessels of mercy” in
v 23 are believers in the church. While v
24 does include believing
Jews and
Gentiles among the “vessels of mercy,” one should not jump
to the conclusion that the rest of the Jews
are the “vessels of wrath.”
While Paul
certainly considered individual unbelieving Jews as recipients
of God's wrath and judgment (e.g. 1 Thess
optimistic view of his nation's
future as a whole. (Rom
26-29; cf. 2
Cor. 3:16).
Yet there is another way to understand this designation, one
which is in harmony with the immediate context
and suggested by the
OT usage. It is suggested that “vessels
of wrath” in v 22 is Paul’s
designation for the heathen nations
God uses to judge
The preceding context in vv 17-21 lends weight to this
identification. To
defend the sovereignty of God’s election, Paul takes
the example of
Pharaoh. Quoting Exod
ordained Pharaoh’s power and his
stubborn resistance in order to
glorify his own greater power
in the deliverance of
of Exodus justifies Paul’s approach (Exod
22-23; 8:15,
32; 9:7, 12, 16, 34-35; 10:1, 20, 27; 11:10; 14:4-5,8, 17-
18, 30-31).
And indeed, God was glorified in Pharaoh’s final defeat
126 GRACE THEOLOGICAL
JOURNAL
(cf. Moses’
song in Exod 15:1-19). But the Egyptian oppression and
deliverance also had its purposes
in
a family went down into
redeemed from bondage by the
Lord. Pharaoh was a “vessel of
wrath,” an instrument used to oppress
himself the final recipient of
God’s wrath in judgment.
The immediate context of vv 22-24 also favors this
understanding.
There is
only one independent verb in this sentence: “What if ...God bore
with much longsuffering vessels of wrath
fitted for destruction?” Several
clauses modify this main verb: “desiring
to show his wrath,” “[desiring]
to make known his power,” “that he might
make known the riches of his
glory upon vessels of mercy. ...” Note that
these three purposes, to
how his wrath, power, and riches of glory,
are met by the single action
of the verb. If the “vessels of wrath” are
the unbelieving Jews, it is
difficult to account for the
expression Paul
uses: God
bears with much longsuffering unbelieving Jews, who are
fitted for destruction. How
does this patience toward the Jews display
God’s wrath and power? Would not
it be better to say: he judges,
punishes, or oppresses
vessels of wrath? On the other hand, if
oppressors are the “vessels of
wrath,” the statement makes perfect
sense: God bears with much longsuffering
heathen, godless nations,
by allowing them to rule over
might use them as instruments to convey his
wrath and power against
unbelieving
nations. In other words, these
verses would equate God’s longsuffering
toward “vessels of wrath” with
the state of Gentile supremacy over
Paul’s day.
Finally, the following context of vv 25-33 supports the identity
of the “vessels of wrath” as
these quotations refer
back to the Assyrian oppression in the
second half of the eighth
century. In many ways
“vessel” of the Lord.
The term “vessel”
in the Greek NT and in the LXX is skeu?oj (in the
LXX it
normally represents yliK;), a word which designates not only
dishes and household
utensils,. but a great variety of implements,
including weapons (e.g., Deut
Medes are
God’s weapons to destroy
term yliK; is
translated in the LXX by the related word o!plon,
“weapon.” It is striking that Paul quotes Isa 10:22-23, which
occurs in
24See the discussion of LXX usage in C. Maurer, "skeu?oj" TDNT 7 (1971) 359-60.
the very context of a lengthy passage
describing
weapon against
“the rod of my anger,” “the club of my wrath,” “the ax,” “the
saw”
(vv 5, 15, NIV).
gracious to Assyria and uses it
to punish
becomes proud against God (vv
7-14), God destroys
15-19,24-34),
This pattern
fits exactly with that of Rom 9:22-God’s patience
towards vessels of wrath used
to display God’s judgment and then his
merciful deliverance of his
people.
It might be tempting at this point to interpret “vessels of wrath”
in Rom
genitive of quality, “vessels
characterized by wrath,”25 but in Paul’s
context the thought
predominates that these vessels will receive
God’s
wrath, just as the “vessels of mercy” will
receive his mercy. So it is
best to take this designation as referring to
the planned destruction of
these vessels (cf. “son of destruction” in 2
Thess 2:3). This is the same
emphasis found concerning
A PROPOSED SOLUTION
In view of the evidence presented to support national
the object of Rom 9:25-26, the six arguments
mentioned earlier
favoring a Gentile application
can be answered adequately.
1) Paul’s mention of Gentile believers in v 24 does not contradict
the
interpretation suggested here. Paul obviously includes them among
God’s “vessels of mercy” and often states that they will share in
the
blessings
promised to
3:6; cf. Matt
in
vv 25-26. Since the word “Gentiles” appears immediately before the
citation,
many assume that Paul sees some reference to Gentiles in this
prophecy. But the whole sentence in which the citation is found begins
at v
22, and the main clause is, “What if God endured the vessels of
wrath?”
This interpretation would link the prophecy to the main clause
of the
sentence. It appears to this writer that Paul invokes Hosea's
prophecies not to prove large-scale Gentile conversions, but to prove
the
temporary but very real nature of
restoration. The prophecies cited
in vv 27-29 continue that theme,
while the nature of Gentile belief, introduced
by Paul in v 24, is
picked up in v 30.
25Nigel Turner, Syntax,
Vol. 3 of J. H. Moulton, A Grammar of New
Testament
Greek (Edinburgh:
T. & T. Clark, 1963) 213.
128 GRACE
THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
2) The de< in v 27 is not a strong adversative and certainly
does not
demand a change of subject. The NIV leaves it untranslated. If
there is any contrast indicated, it is simply
between two different
aspects of
3) I Pet
I Pet 1:1;
Gal 2:9); and in any case, all recognize that only true
believers can ever be members of
God’s promised kingdom (John 3:3).
4) The argument concerning “vessels of wrath” is expanded in
the previous section.
5) All three quotations in Rom
Isa 65:1-2)
prove the same point: God revealed himself more than
sufficiently to
de< in vv 20, 21 are again not strongly
adversative. The "non-nation"
in v 19 is, according to Deuteronomy, one of
is favored by God only in this: he gives the
"non-nation" power to
oppress
by these nations is another way God sought
to reveal his will to
and bring her to repentance. V 20 emphasizes
God's continuing to reveal
himself to
the quotation, emphasizing the continuing
nature of this revelation
and invitation.
6) In Rom
because of Gentile supremacy in
the world (cf. Rom
play on words in Rom 11:11, 14, Paul seeks the
same reaction by
announcing Gentile supremacy in
the church. Obviously, the believing
Gentiles of
Romans 11 are not the oppressing powers of Deut
32:21 and
Rom
time. The "times of the Gentiles,"
in contrast to the OT period and
the future millennial kingdom, witness
Gentile supremacy in both the
world and the church (Luke
relevance for Paul's entire
argument: it provides proof that, before
belief, disenfranchisement,
and subjugation to Gentile power, but that
through these trials, and by
means of them, God will bring her to
repentance and restoration, thus
fulfilling the covenants and promises
(Rom
defines God's unchangeable
election (Rom 9:6; 11:1,28-29), defines
his own ministry as it relates to that
election (Rom
declares the wondrous way God
reveals his various attributes in this
circuitous route leading to
22-23;
With this understanding of Paul's argument, one could expand
and paraphrase Rom 9:22-26 as follows:
What if God
exercises his sovereignty over
godless Gentile nations to rule
over the earth-nations he ultimately
will destroy? God is patient with these
nations in order to use them as
instruments to deal with his own
people. As they oppress
is revealing his wrath and power against
her; and as God will later
destroy them and deliver his
people, granting them repentance and
restoration, he will thereby reveal
the riches of his glory to that nation.
Yes,
his glory, but this blessing will come only
to those Israelites who repent
and believe in him. For the present only some
are believers, who, along
with believing Gentiles, will share in these
blessings. But most of the
nation is still in rebellion
and under God's displeasure and judgment;
their restoration as a nation is still in the
future; as it says in Hosea,
"I will
call them my people who were not my people, and her beloved
who was not beloved; and where it was said to
them, 'You are not
my people,'
there they will be called sons of the living God."
This
interpretation of Rom 9:25-26 maintains a consistent hermeneu-
tic for the OT and NT and fits very well with
Paul's exact terminology
and development of argument in Romans 9-11.
This
material is cited with gracious permission from:
Grace
Theological Seminary
www.grace.edu
Please
report any errors to Ted Hildebrandt at:
thildebrandt@gordon.edu