Romans Exegesis

[Zeta-Flux]

This thread is meant to be a discussion between cksalmon and myself on the meaning of Romans. Others are free to participate if they keep things on topic.

Initial question: Is Paul's answer in Rom. 9:19-20 a response to the questioner, or a valid response to the question itself? Elaborate.

I'll try to take some time and lay out how I read Romans 9 later. I will say, initially, that I do not believe that the reference earlier to Jacob and Esau were references to their respective nations; but in fact references to the historical people with those names. Yes, Paul is quoting Malachi, and yes Malachi talks of those nations, but the specific quotation Paul uses (at least as I read it in Malachi) is talking about the fathers of those nations.

[cksalmon]

This thread is meant to be a discussion between cksalmon and myself on the meaning of Romans. Others are free to participate if they keep things on topic.

Initial question: Is Paul's answer in Rom. 9:19-20 a response to the questioner, or a valid response to the question itself? Elaborate.

I'll try to take some time and lay out how I read Romans 9 later. I will say, initially, that I do not believe that the reference earlier to Jacob and Esau were references to their respective nations; but in fact references to the historical people with those names. Yes, Paul is quoting Malachi, and yes Malachi talks of those nations, but the specific quotation Paul uses (at least as I read it in Malachi) is talking about the fathers of those nations.

Hey Zeta--

Should be interesting. I also think that johndoe should be granted pundit status in order to participate here. He is simply the most capable and articulate proponent of LDS compatibilism on the board. That is a key point here. Our discussion will be the lesser for his absence. Mods?

cks

[Zeta-Flux]

cksalmon,

I think it would be fine if johndoe participates here.

To kick things off, I thought I'd give a rough feeling for how I currently read the beginning of Romans chapter 9. Feel free to correct anything.

Verses 1-5: In the KJV, it almost sounds like Paul is talking about how he cares for the Israelites, and could even wish himself separated from Christ for their sakes. This reading strikes me as strange, in that both Paul and I know that such a wish wouldn't help his brethren, nor himself. Although, this reading wouldn't be beyond the realm of possibility; one could read it as hyperbolic. Or in a similar vein to when Alma wishes he were an angel.

In other translations, such Young's literal, or Darby's, it reads in the past tense. This is, unfortunately, obscured in the KJV. In that case, it is possible Paul is grieved about his previous life of fighting against the gospel. However, that reading just doesn't fit the context later, when Paul begins talking about the promises of God to the Israelites.

So, the way I read these verses is that Paul is truly grieved for the state of the Israelites, even to the point of wishing something horrible on himself if it would help them.

Verses 6-9: In verse 6, Paul shifts gears, and begins talking about how God's words/promises never fail. I take this to mean that even though the Israelites are in a wicked state, the promises God gives both to them and about them, especially those Abrahamic covenants, will not fall flat. He begins explaining how that happens by clarifying that Israelites are not those who are merely physically descended from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Rather, they are the ones who are God's promised inheritors. As John put it, God can make rocks become the seed of Abraham. Or, as Christ has put it, Abraham's seed are "those who worship God in spirit and in truth." To drive this point home, Paul compares Ishmael and Isaac. Ishmael was born first, but Isaac was born according to promises from God.

Paul, in talking about Israelites, equates them with "God's children". I do not read this as saying Ishmael was not saved, or not one of God's children. Rather, that Ishmael's circumstances serve as an illustration of how God fulfills His promises; via spiritual promises and not necessarily physical means.

Verses 10-13: Paul continues this point with the example of Jacob and Esau. Why do so? I believe it is because some of his readers might think that Ishmael didn't live up the covenants, and so God had to replace him; that is, God had to "cheat" to fulfill His promises (i.e. that people can make them void by their evil actions). But, the story of Jacob and Esau discounts this possibility completely, because even before they are born, before they have done any good or bad, God chose/elected Jacob to be the one through whom the blessings came. This election was not brought about by works, and was made by God to accomplish God's will. Part of that choice involved giving greater blessings to Jacob. God promises that Esau's seed will serve Jacob's seed. Paul even quotes Malachi, who points out that Esau's inheritance has been made into a wasteland while Jacob's inheritance has been blessing. God even goes further in Malachi, saying that He will continue to lay waste to Edom.

Some have thought that the verses in Malachi refer to the nations of Israel and Edom. While this is true of verse 4, this is not true of the earlier verse in my opinion, for the following reasons. The Hebrew (as I understand it) uses different words for Edom and Esau (even in these verses). As far as I can see, God refers to the nations as Israel and Edom, and their progenitors as Jacob and Esau. Further, it speaks of the specific brotherhood of Jacob and Esau in verse 2. As far as I know, the nations were never `brothers' in any significant sense.

I imagine that the "nations" interpretation mostly arises because of the quotation from Gen. 25:23 about they older serving the younger. That verse definitely is speaking of nations (go read it in context!). It was the older nation which served the younger nation; not Esau serving Jacob. However, Paul's later quotation from Malachi is talking about how God favored the person Jacob over his brother Esau, with the way He has dealt with their posterity. (And this continues to go along the lines Paul is preaching.)

Verses 14-18: It would be natural now to ask the question of whether that was just of God to favor one over the other; even before they did anything. Paul's answer is that God is not unjust in any way.

To give evidence that God is not unjust, Paul quotes Exodus 33:19. I imagine that Paul had the entire context in mind; so let me give that now. Exodus 33 starts with God commanding Moses and the people to go to the promised land (since He did promise it afterall), although God won't go with them because He might destroy them on the way because they are a wicked people (in the previous chapter they made the golden calf!). The people, being warned by Moses of these hard words, take off their jewelry and mourn. Moses then goes to speak face to face with the Lord and asks to know His ways. The Lord tells Moses that His presence will go with him. Moses reasons with the Lord that if He doesn't come with the people, they won't be impressed with the Lord. The Lord relents, and promises to do as Moses asks. Moses asks to see God's glory. God promises to show Moses His goodness, but hides His face from Moses because those who see His face cannot live, although Moses will see His backside. In the midst of this exchange, God says "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion." Apparently, Moses has obtained that mercy and compassion.

Some read the fact that Moses couldn't see God's face as saying that He was still angry with the Israelites, and this angry face would kill Moses. I personally believe that it means something more along the lines of "mortals cannot see God in all His glory and remain mortals". At any rate, that is a side issue. The real issue, about God giving His mercy and compassion, seems to be that Paul has used the example of God giving His mercy to the Israelites even after they blew it bigtime.

Now, this is the point where I think my interpretation of what Paul is saying will differ significantly from yours. I imagine that Paul's words are actually meant to answer the question of how God could favor Jacob over Esau, before they had even done anything, and not be unjust. I do not think that an appeal to an abstract, greek philosophical, "He's God and whatever He chooses is not unrighteousness" answers that query in the slightest. On the other hand, if one already believes in God, and knows Him to be a kind, loving being, then appealing the Ex. 33:19, and saying that God will have mercy on whom He will, does answer the question. It means that we don't have to worry if God decides to favor someone else, because He is absolutely and ultimately righteous, and will take mercy on us, just like He did with the Israelites after the golden calf episode.

Verse 16, I believe, is the root of the whole problem. Is the implicit subject of the sentence "showing mercy" or is it the earlier subject of "electing one for blessings"? And are these different things in Paul's mind? Is Paul saying that not only does God make choices in how to fulfill His blessings not necessarily based upon the actions of mortals, but is he also preaching the idea that God does not base His mercy-giving on actions either? I think the ultimate answer to these questions is provided by the context of the previous verse, and the context of the next few verses. There, Paul cites the example of the Pharaoh who would not let the people go. Such actions were in direct conflict with God's expressed command to "let my people go." And yet, at the same time, God specifically raised this Pharaoh up so He could show forth His wonders in saving His people from Pharaoh. And not only that, but in the context of Exodus 9 (which Paul is quoting) God says, basically, "I could have stretched out my hand and struck you and your people with a plague that would have wiped you off the earth. But I have raised you up for this very purpose, that I might show you my power and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth. You still set yourself against my people and will not let them go." Paul is citing an instance of God showing mercy, once again, to a very wicked man; directly to accomplish God's good will.

In verse 18 Paul concludes that God will have mercy on whomever He will, and He will harden whomever He will. For me, he truly has answered the question of whether God is righteous because God shows mercy even on those who don't deserve it, so that His righteous will can be carried out. God may favor one nation above another, or one person above another, but He will always be merciful and kind and these mercies are meant to (at least in Mormon doctrine) bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. Verse 16, in my mind, is indeed talking about how God shows forth His mercies. It isn't based on our own wills, or on our own efforts (thankfully, since they utterly fall short!) but on God Himself, who is kind beyond measure. I think perhaps the biggest mistake in reading this chapter would be to come away with the idea that God will not bless those who try to serve Him. Yes, He won't bless them because they serve Him, but He will bless them because He desires to bless as much of mankind as possible.

Now, at the end of verse 18, we see another issue arise. Paul comments that God also hardens. This seems to harkens back to Pharaoh. God hardens Pharaoh's heart so He won't let Israel go, and then God shows mercy on Pharaoh by not destroying him and his nation. Now, most people I think would agree with me that it is one thing to trust in God's goodness to show us mercies, but it is quite another to believe that God reaches down and forcibly hardens us and our hearts. However, I'm not entirely convinced that when Paul brings up the idea of hardening that he has in mind God using His power to change our natures so we will act differently. In fact, I don't think Paul is hinting at the Pharaoh story any longer (which I think he meant to be about mercy)--or at least not in the mistaken idea of God overriding Pharaoh's will. Rather, I think he has in mind the potter analogy; where all the potter has to do is leave the clay alone and it hardens on its own. In other words, whether or not the footnote in the LDS version is an accurate reconstruction of the greek meaning, I think it is an accurate reconstruction of Paul's meaning; which further makes the sentence parallel. God either sends his mercy or He doesn't. He either favors or leaves us to harden as clay.

Verses 19-21: Verse 19 seems to contradict my exegesis, as it seems to imply that the hearer (in Paul's mind) believes Paul is preaching that people must do what God wills them to do, and that this seems to imply that God is unfair in finding fault with our actions. After pondering it, I think this is a misreading of the question. The greek word for "will" can also mean "counsel" or "purpose". I believe the correct reading should be something like this: "Why is it fair for God to blame us when we do what He has planned for us?" Note that this does not necessarily imply that God forces us to do what He has in mind. Furthermore, I think even Mormons must answer this question; if they believe that God does things like bless one nation over another, or put people into positions to accomplish His will. Moreover, I think such a questioner would seriously have missed the point of Paul's message to this point: God chose Israel, but those in Israel can turn out not to be in Israel. He made Israel a vessel of honour, and Edom a vessel of destruction...but not all of Israel are of Israel. (More on this in verse 22.)

Paul's response then makes sense to me. He is rebuking such a question as "talking back to God" because that is what is happening. The questioner is complaining that God made them in a way they don't like; and further implying that God's purposes can be evil (i.e. have faults). It would be like a shovel complaining that he isn't a fancy silver spoon and that the maker doesn't like the shovel. The shovel just has no conception of the purpose which God has for him; and while it might be shoveling manure it still serves the shovel's creator's purpose. Paul points out that out of one lump of clay, God has power to make a vessel unto honour, or a vessel unto dishonour. It is interesting to look at the other times in the scriptures this metaphor of a potter is used. I think the point here is (although I am less sure about this) we are a lump which God can make to whatever righteous purpose He desires, and we are to make the most of it even if we don't like the purpose He puts us to.

The rest of the chapter seems to be about how God wants to destroy the wicked, but waits patiently with them, because He also really, really, REALLY wants to show mercy. Look at what He did with the Israelites! They've stumbled, but He does not destroy them outright (i.e He shows mercy) in the hopes that He can save some of them (see Romans 10:21 and all of chapter 11).

Anyway, that's my take. It is fairly fluid at the moment, prone to error, but also seems to fit fairly well with everything I read. Go ahead and take a stab at it.

[cksalmon]

[snip!]

Zeta--

(Feel free to call me Chris, btw. I'd actually prefer that.)

I sincerely appreciate your very thorough explication of your understanding of Rom 9. As you might expect, my reading differs from yours at key points, but, in other areas, I happen to find myself in complete agreement with you.

I hope to thoroughly digest your comments before responding. I hope you don't mind a several day delay.

Best.

Chris

[cksalmon]

HI Zeta--

This is only a partial response (dealing with Rom 9.1-5).

(Because I composed this in MS Word, I haven't bothered with the quote feature, but instead have indicated your comments with "Zeta-flux writes.")

To kick things off, I thought I'd give a rough feeling for how I currently read the beginning of Romans chapter 9. Feel free to correct anything.

Verses 1-5: In the KJV, it almost sounds like Paul is talking about how he cares for the Israelites, and could even wish himself separated from Christ for their sakes. This reading strikes me as strange, in that both Paul and I know that such a wish wouldn't help his brethren, nor himself. Although, this reading wouldn't be beyond the realm of possibility; one could read it as hyperbolic. Or in a similar vein to when Alma wishes he were an angel.

In other translations, such Young's literal, or Darby's, it reads in the past tense. This is, unfortunately, obscured in the KJV. In that case, it is possible Paul is grieved about his previous life of fighting against the gospel. However, that reading just doesn't fit the context later, when Paul begins talking about the promises of God to the Israelites.

So, the way I read these verses is that Paul is truly grieved for the state of the Israelites, even to the point of wishing something horrible on himself if it would help them.

Zeta-Flux writes: In other translations, such Young's literal, or Darby's, it reads in the past tense. This is, unfortunately, obscured in the KJV. In that case, it is possible Paul is grieved about his previous life of fighting against the gospel.

Young's Literal Translation (YLT) does accurately capture the grammar in its translation of the Gr. verb (euvco,mhn, eukomen—the imperfect middle indicative form) in v. 3: "I was wishing." YLT is a great translation in order to gain a quick and dirty, very literal understanding of the Greek. Unfortunately, it does not particularly excel at conveying contextual meaning.

In the case of eukomen in the context of v. 3, many scholars have concluded that a past-tense reading is both "contextually unlikely and grammatically unnecessary" (Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996], 558). Moo states, "I prefer, in agreement with most English translation, to ascribe a hypothetical nuance to the imperfect tense; as Cransfield paraphrases, 'I would pray (were it permissible for me so to pray and if the fulfillment of such a prayer could benefit them)'" (quoting from C. E. B. Cranfield, The Epistle to the Romans: Romans 9-16: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary (T. & T. Clark Publishers, 2004). So also Joseph A. Fitzmyer, in Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (Geoffrey Chapman, 1993); G. P. Wiles in Paul's Intercessory Prayers: The Significance of the Intercessory Prayer Passages in the Letters of St. Paul; and Porter, Verbal Aspect, 208-211 (among several other grammarians). So also John Piper by implication from his sermons on this passage (I haven't yet received in the mails his in-depth study on Romans 9).

This "timeless" (Porter), hypothetical understanding is reflected in NIV, NASB, KJV, ESV among several others translation. So, I prefer to take eukomen as, for example, ESV renders it: "For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh" (which largely parallels KJV here).

Zeta-flux writes: "it almost sounds like Paul is talking about how he cares for the Israelites, and could even wish himself separated from Christ for their sakes."

In light of the foregoing (and some other considerations below) I think this reading is right on target, actually. One of Paul's main burdens in this chapter is to explain how it is that so many, many Jews have rejected the Gospel message of Jesus Christ. He opens his epistle to the church at Rome by averring that the Gospel is for the Jew first, then the Greek (gentile). See Rom 1.16. This is because the Jews are "Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen" (Rom 9.4-5).

So, why has the majority of ethnic Israel rejected its messiah? Paul is very clear in Rom 9.6 that, whatever the reason may be, it is certainly not that the word of God has failed. But, I'm getting ahead of myself. More on that later.

To return to v. 3, it seems as though Paul is very much expressing the desire of his heart: if it were possible (he knows that it isn't), he would even wish himself to be cut off from Christ if somehow that would mean that his kinsmen—his fellow Jews—could be made to see and rejoice in the saving Gospel of Christ as Israel's Messiah that he preaches.

Although, as you point out, Paul knows that such a wish can't actually help his brethren, that is no reason to suggest that he cannot have felt and expressed the desire. We routinely express such counterfactual, though presumably sincere, sentiments: "I wish I had known what to do," "I wish I that hadn't happened," "I wish she hadn't done that," "I wish I could have been there," "I wish I could have taken his place," etc.

I see no reason to read this passage as other than a sincere hypothetical desire arising from the "great sorrow and unceasing anguish" he feels with regard to their rejection of the Gospel. I believe Paul has in mind not ethnic Israel writ large (as a generic composite entity), but the individual Jews that made up that nation. I find this personal concern (although expressed in 3^rd-person plural form) reiterated in Rom 10.1-3: "Brothers [i.e., Christian believers in the church at Rome], my heart's desire and prayer to God for them [his Jewish kinsmen] is that they may be saved. I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. For, being ignorant of the righteousness that comes from God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness [as found in Christ]."

At any rate, I read this passage as referring to Paul's anguish over the individual salvific states of his kinsmen in ethnic Israel. I can't see that it refers merely to the Jewish nation generically. (Of course, one of the contextual clues that points me in the direction of this reading is the individual aspect of some of the later verses in Rom 9.)

(There still might be some overlap in the desire voiced by Alma in Alma 29.1. His emphasis seems to be on individual souls as well: "Yea, I would declare unto every soul, as with the voice of thunder, repentance and the plan of redemption, that they should repent and come unto our God, that there might not be more sorrow upon all the face of the earth" [Alma 29.2])

Zeta-flux writes: "So, the way I read these verses is that Paul is truly grieved for the state of the Israelites, even to the point of wishing something horrible on himself if it would help them."

I think we're on the same track, then, as far as this goes. But, I'm not sure, given what I've quoted from you directly above, why you would the reading as "strange, in that both Paul and I know that such a wish wouldn't help his brethren, nor himself." Do you mean that you find it a strange reading, but also a compelling one?

Zeta-flux writes: "In that case, it is possible Paul is grieved about his previous life of fighting against the gospel. However, that reading just doesn't fit the context later, when Paul begins talking about the promises of God to the Israelites."

I agree that this reading just doesn't fit the context and should be rejected.

[NOTE: Sorry that I'm going about this rather laboriously, Zeta. I think, though, that I'll probably have to tackle the sections you've demarcated as individual units. On separate days!]

My best to you,

Chris

[Zeta-Flux]

Chris,

From what I understand, the imperfect middle can also denote a continuing action, which seems to go along well with what you said. At any rate, I think we are perfectly in agreement on the basic meaning of these verses, and I didn't see anything I particularly disagreed with in the side scriptures and interpretations you brought up. (In other words, I really liked what you wrote and cannot find any faults.)

To answer your question, I said I found the scripture strange (at least for me) because the ineffectiveness of Paul's wish is obvious to me. It would be like me wishing for a dagger to kill myself so I could fix the budget crisis. I understand that Paul deeply cares about his countrymen, and I don't mean to belittle that. But Paul's counterfactual wish just doesn't seem to connect with what he wants accomplished; at least from my perspective. And I don't think Paul wants it to connect, per se, but just to express how deep his feelings are. It guess it would be more like me saying, "I wish I could be tortured for a million years so my friend wouldn't have to go through the messy divorce he did." I understand the emotion; but the logic falls flat because I'm a mathematician and we deal with counter-factuals daily. While I can understand the emotional power after I consider it for a while, my initial reaction is to first evaluate the logic of the statement.

Anyway, that's more about me and less about the scriptures. I await the next installment.

Cheers,

Zeta-Flux

[cksalmon]

Hi Zetaâ??

To answer your question, I said I found the scripture strange (at least for me) because the ineffectiveness of Paul's wish is obvious to me. It would be like me wishing for a dagger to kill myself so I could fix the budget crisis. I understand that Paul deeply cares about his countrymen, and I don't mean to belittle that. But Paul's counterfactual wish just doesn't seem to connect with what he wants accomplished; at least from my perspective. And I don't think Paul wants it to connect, per se, but just to express how deep his feelings are. It guess it would be more like me saying, "I wish I could be tortured for a million years so my friend wouldn't have to go through the messy divorce he did." I understand the emotion; but the logic falls flat because I'm a mathematician and we deal with counter-factuals daily. While I can understand the emotional power after I consider it for a while, my initial reaction is to first evaluate the logic of the statement.

I think I see what you mean. But, I would suggest (1) that Paul is not intending to invoke a logical argument. There does appear to be something of the hyperbolic hereâ??as you suggested (a rhetorical flourish that need not lack sincerity merely in light of that fact).

(2) I think, in this particular case, emotion trumps logic. Paul is not, to my mind, arguing, "If I truly wished X, then X would occur," or anything like that, but rather, "I would do absolutely anythingâ??even wish to be cut off from Christâ??if that might possibly mean that my kinsmen could see and savor the Gospel of Jesus Christ." Of course, he knows that such is not possible (as he makes clear several verses later, on my view), but he nonetheless feels compelled to express the desire (hyperbolic as it might be) in light of his deep emotional desire for the salvation of his kinsmen.

Pace your reading, I believe he really does want his expression of anguish to connect with his readers. After all, he's about to defend his position that God is certainly not unjust and that God's word has not failed even though most of ethic Israel has rejected its messsiahâ??and despite the fact that the sincere desire of Paul's heart is precisely that "they [his kinsmen] may be saved." His argument seems to hinge on the twin facts that (3) he very much desires their salvation and that (4) he knows such is not to be (at least not now, not in the way he desires it).

So, I take him as saying something like, "I so much wish that my kinsmen could see the truthâ??if I could do something about it, even be cut off from Christ to accomplish it, I would do it. I really mean that. I'm not lying." But, it is not to be (and he knows it's not to be). Why not? (Paul has an argument as to the "why not.") And, it is to that argument he begins to move next, starting in v. 6.

To answer your question, I said I found the scripture strange (at least for me) because the ineffectiveness of Paul's wish is obvious to me. It would be like me wishing for a dagger to kill myself so I could fix the budget crisis.

But, the measure of the anguish-laden desire is not derived from the plausibility of its hypothetical end. In fact, I'd argue that the anguish Paul expresses is directly related to his belief that his desire is impossible.

I don't find the budget crisis analogy

[Zeta-Flux]

Hi Zetaâ??

I think I see what you mean. But, I would suggest (1) that Paul is not intending to invoke a logical argument. There does appear to be something of the hyperbolic hereâ??as you suggested (a rhetorical flourish that need not lack sincerity merely in light of that fact).

(2) I think, in this particular case, emotion trumps logic. Paul is not, to my mind, arguing, "If I truly wished X, then X would occur," or anything like that, but rather, "I would do absolutely anythingâ??even wish to be cut off from Christâ??if that might possibly mean that my kinsmen could see and savor the Gospel of Jesus Christ." Of course, he knows that such is not possible (as he makes clear several verses later, on my view), but he nonetheless feels compelled to express the desire (hyperbolic as it might be) in light of his deep emotional desire for the salvation of his kinsmen.

Pace your reading, I believe he really does want his expression of anguish to connect with his readers. After all, he's about to defend his position that God is certainly not unjust and that God's word has not failed even though most of ethic Israel has rejected its messsiahâ??and despite the fact that the sincere desire of Paul's heart is precisely that "they [his kinsmen] may be saved." His argument seems to hinge on the twin facts that (3) he very much desires their salvation and that (4) he knows such is not to be (at least not now, not in the way he desires it).

So, I take him as saying something like, "I so much wish that my kinsmen could see the truthâ??if I could do something about it, even be cut off from Christ to accomplish it, I would do it. I really mean that. I'm not lying." But, it is not to be (and he knows it's not to be). Why not? (Paul has an argument as to the "why not.") And, it is to that argument he begins to move next, starting in v. 6.

I agree with this, and this is how I now read his meaning also. But notice that you have to expand "I could wish..." to "I could wish it if the world wasn't the way it is..." On my initial reading, such a jump wasn't completely clear (and I'm still not entirely convinced that Paul isn't actually saying he wishes the world were different than it is so he could help his brethren in that way...but I would hope that isn't what he really wants).

But, the measure of the anguish-laden desire is not derived from the plausibility of its hypothetical end. In fact, I'd argue that the anguish Paul expresses is directly related to his belief that his desire is impossible.

I don't find the budget crisis analogy

[cksalmon]

I agree with this, and this is how I now read his meaning also. But notice that you have to expand "I could wish..." to "I could wish it if the world wasn't the way it is..." On my initial reading, such a jump wasn't completely clear (and I'm still not entirely convinced that Paul isn't actually saying he wishes the world were different than it is so he could help his brethren in that way...but I would hope that isn't what he really wants).

I agree. That is why I added the statement that my example wasn't meant to belittle Paul's words, and also why I added another example later which was a slightly better fit (although still not entirely satisfactory). My example was an attempt to help you understand my initial impression with Paul's words, and not how I interpret them now.

Cheers,

Zeta-Flux

Thanks for the clarification, Zeta.

I haven't forgotten. Hopefully, I'll get around to the next section tonight.

Best,

Chris

[soren]

cksalmon,

I think it would be fine if johndoe participates here.

To kick things off, I thought I'd give a rough feeling for how I currently read the beginning of Romans chapter 9. Feel free to correct anything.

Verses 1-5: In the KJV, it almost sounds like Paul is talking about how he cares for the Israelites, and could even wish himself separated from Christ for their sakes. This reading strikes me as strange, in that both Paul and I know that such a wish wouldn't help his brethren, nor himself. Although, this reading wouldn't be beyond the realm of possibility; one could read it as hyperbolic. Or in a similar vein to when Alma wishes he were an angel.

In other translations, such Young's literal, or Darby's, it reads in the past tense. This is, unfortunately, obscured in the KJV. In that case, it is possible Paul is grieved about his previous life of fighting against the gospel. However, that reading just doesn't fit the context later, when Paul begins talking about the promises of God to the Israelites.

So, the way I read these verses is that Paul is truly grieved for the state of the Israelites, even to the point of wishing something horrible on himself if it would help them.

Zeta,

You say a lot here that I would like to weigh in on, both in agreement and disagreement. I'll start off with a counter-proposal for what Paul means when he says he could wish to be accursed. He does not mean that he would wish to loose the life of salvation, which would be useless absurd, but is also not speaking hyperbolically. I would suggest he is invoking the curses upon himself for violating the covenant in Lev 26:14-39. I find it significant that the Levitical curses are all sevenfold and in 9:4-5 Paul lists seven blessings in a clearly structured manner. I don't know if you read Greek, but if you do, you can easily see that the first three are a group and the second are a parallel group. The final item, "the fathers" stands alone as the seventh. I read these blessings as indicative of God's covenantal relationship with Israel. Seven is the number that denotes oath and Paul's invocation of the Holy Spirit as a witness in 9:1 places his words in an oath-taking and therefore covenantal context.

I take Paul to be saying, I would willingly suffer the sevenfold curses of the law for the sake of Israel. This fits the overall Pauline theme of Christlike suffering by drawing a parallel between Paul and Christ, who is "cursed" by virtue of being hung on a tree.