Sabbath_Doctrine.rtf

THE MYTH OF “FREE WILL” Note: Romans Chapter 9:14-24 Romans 9:14-18 Text {Rom 9:14} We now come to a set of two questions/answers, the first in v14 here, and the second in v19. As is usual for Paul, and explained before, he must have preached the same sermons - with the same themes as Romans in his travels - and received the same questions regarding the content and objections of that gospel as we find here (note, for instance, the linguistic/thematic similarities in the letters of Ephesians and Colossians). He wrote in a similar vein and probably heard the same objections akin the one here in v14 many times. If the question was raised by a Jew in a synagogue (like v6), there was a curious hypocrisy, for just as God chose Jacob over Esau, Israel was the elect nation of God from all others in the world (cf. Is 45:4)105. But this objection, that God is unrighteous to have His will guide all things - especially our wills - is everywhere heard even in the church (and she is God’s elect! cf. Tit 1:1; 1 Pet 2:4,9). Mankind kicks against God’s sovereignty because, in fact, he (man) desires that his personal will rules the day (I cannot imagine anyone denying this intrinsic desire!). As we saw though in the note on Jn 15:16, Jesus believed and taught everything that Paul does in 9:11, which is the foundation of the objection here (see note#69 in Rom 8:17)106. So the Roman readers must have been thinking along the lines of this question when Paul stated that before the birth of Jacob and Esau - with no relation to any good works in life - God chose the elder to serve the younger, and then quotes from the inspired text of Malachi (Mal 1:3). Men believe, even in God’s world, that he (man) should be the captain of his fate, particularly regarding mercy and judgement. Thus, Paul preempts the objection sure to come, “What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God”, to which we have Paul’s strongest retort - “God Forbid”. 105It has always seem strange to me that, just as God set aside all nations for Israel (without much Christian objection), that so many would raise the objection of 9:14 in our 20th-21st centuries over the election of v11! It is certainly everywhere taught in the OT, especially as v15 is taken right out of Exodus as proof of God’s righteous dealings with men. 106Here is an almost exhaustive list to show God’s free-will over man’s “free” will, although clearly both are freely exercised. Note God’s direction of man’s will and specific texts to that end in: Gen 20:6-7; 31:7; 35:5; Ex 4:11; 34:24; Jud 14:4; 1 Sam 2:25; 25:26,34; 1 Ki 12:15; 2 Ki 6:33; 2 Chron 22:7; Romans 3 1 25:16,20; Ps 81:12; Prov 16:1,9; 21:1; Is 10:15; 19:14; Hos 2:6; Mt 10:19; 11:21,23; Jn 15:16; Acts 2:23; 4:27-28; 2 Thess 2:11; Rev 17:17. {Rom 9:15} Paul’s grounds for his strong “God Forbid” answer is an interesting one. He does not back down, clarify, or apologize for some mistake of understanding, nor does he reverse the truth of v11 or the query of v14! Paul does not say, somehow, the questioner had misunderstood his doctrine stated in 9:6b-13. On the contrary, Paul seams to quote from the text available to both Jew and Gentile, the Septuagint OT (LXX, which is the Greek rendering of the inspired Hebrew text), and the texts of God’s great manifestation of His Glory to Moses in Ex 33:19 in response to Moses’ plea, “Show me Your glory”*. We are therefore dealing with God’s self-revelation of His nature to Moses, and God’s statement of, “I shall make all my goodness pass before you” (Ex 33:19). The manifest glory of God, like His Son Jesus Christ in Jn 2:1-1,1 is a display of His attribute(s) - in this case, His goodness. But, this display of glory in His goodness is not just His general goodness to all creatures (cf. Mt 5:45; Acts 14:17), but His sovereign mercies to chosen sinners. Thus, Paul’s quote directly answers his opponent’s query by, “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion”. We must remember that the objection is about God’s sovereign dealings with men even before they were born. This text directly answers the issue. But there is something more. The “for” of v15 tells us that this sovereign choice is bound up with God’s righteousness as a revelation of His manifest glory. In short, the essential aspect of God’s glory is His sovereign rule in creation, and with His creatures. Thus, when we hold up vv15-16, we are upholding God’s righteousness, which is the display of His glory. *This is really stunning for those who deny the absolute sovereign mercies of God in election unto redemption. I say this because God makes clear to Moses that the great expression of His glory is this very truth of sovereign mercy; that is, the free exercise of His Divine will in grace to whom He will. A work which thoroughly explores this is J. Piper’s “The Justification of God”, Baker Books. {Rom 9:16} (then) Therefore Therefore not the willing one, nor the running one, but the Mercy-ing One, God             This is Paul’s lovely Greek conclusion of the Q&A of 9:14-15. Note the Greek interlinear above: it is neither of the one willing nor the one running (e.g. working), but rather of the One granting mercy, God Almighty. Now we must recognize that both the question of v14 and Paul’s summery answer of v16 lets us have confidence that we really have understood the questioner’s problem (and ours?). It is nothing new in the heart of man. Our hearts rebel Romans 3 2 against God’s control of the world He made. We protest the free-will of God but have no problem with our will being “free”107 along with our free exercise of that will*. Yet, we are the sinners, and God’s choices are always grounded in His absolute holiness and purity. This is certainly not our nature or will. All His choices are not just holy but are grounded in infinite wisdom. We really must pause and shelve our prejudice and sinful pride, for those who argue against this point are not arguing with Paul but their own hearts, and their own pride. 107Again, note the verses in Scripture supporting Paul’s view of God’s “freewill” over man’s will (see note #106, 9:14) *It is Toulouse-Lautrec that summarized the “God-complex” of the common man when he said if God’s reigns over man’s will, then man cannot be free. Too many Christians think the same way. Man can only be free if God takes a “hands off” attitude toward His creation! What is humorous is that even without God “ruling” over man’s will, the impact of a thousand differing influences in life each moment clearly impinge on man’s will and choices. If man thinks in some fashion he holds all things at bay and somehow is totally free in his choices in some kind of vacuum, he is delusional to say the least. {Rom 9:17} Paul now brings up the other side of the salvation-coin, reprobation/hardening, with the example of Pharaoh. We know where Paul is going by reading his next verse (v18). Much has been made regarding Pharaoh hardening his own heart (Ex 7:14,22; 8:15,19,32; 9:7,34,35) verses God hardening Pharaoh’s heart (4:21; 7:3,13; 9:12; 10:1,20,27; 11:10; 14:4,8,17). People even count the numbers! But we should note: 1) the first of the “hardenings” was done by God (4:21); 2) in this verse here (9:17), Paul is quoting from Ex 9:16 regarding Pharaoh being raised up, and it is just previous to this in Exodus (9:12) that the Scriptures spoke of the Lord hardening Pharaoh’s heart; and 3) Paul’s deduction of “whom He wills, He hardens” (9:18) pretty well sets the table for the specific truth Paul is wanting the Romans, and us, to understand (remember, the question of v14 and its answer [vv15-18] are a response to God’s sovereign choice prior to any works done by the objects of that choice). The Lord’s will, and not Pharaoh’s, is the determining factor of mercy and hardening. God raised Pharaoh up to make His power known throughout all the earth (Greek, , “land”). Paul is quoting Ex 9:16 to show that the Lord desired to show forth His will and display His glory through Pharaoh and the deliverance of God’s chosen nation. It must be clear where Paul is going with his argument. As Proverbs 21:1 says, “The king’s heart is in the hands of the LORD, as the rivers of water: He turns it whithersoever He will”. This was Paul’s point in 9:6b-13 (especially v11), and the ground of his “God Forbid” to the question of 9:14. There is no real mystery to the flow of his logic and the point he desires to make. Romans 9 has only been clouded Romans 3 3 because of man’s rebellious heart and his prejudices which he, and we, tend to bring often to the text and the doctrine. {Rom 9:18} Paul has but to conclude in our verse. The Greek is identical on both sides of God’s work: He pities whom He will and hardens whom He will. We were already prepared for the above if we had read the book of Exodus, because only four chapters into it, Moses is told by God regarding the speech of men, “Who made man’s mouth? Or who made the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? Have not I the LORD” (Ex 4:11)? As we have seen previously, Jesus taught the same Lordship over something as mundane as the birds of the air (Mt 10:29). Paul will go on to ask a far more difficult question in v19, but we should summarize what we have learned up to now. First, Paul brings a complaint about his gospel in 9:6. Because of so few Jews, God’s covenant people, were being blessed by his gospel, those in synagogues and on Paul’s missionary travels probably asked the question of 9:6 often. Secondly, Paul states a fact that not all Israelites born from Abraham’s physical seed were also his true spiritual seed in terms of faith (9:6b). Thirdly, these blessing were of sovereign decree, as seen by the sovereign choices of Abraham and Isaac. Fourthly, Paul makes this more explicit with the choice of Jacob over Esau, showing that totally apart from the works in their history - these two men were chosen according to God’s electing purpose (vv10-13). Fifthly, a second objection arises in v14 from Paul’s answer of the query in v6 in v11: God’s dealings are unrighteous, aren’t they? Sixthly, Paul quotes Ex 33:19 regarding mercy, then draws his conclusion in v16; after which he quotes Ex 9:16 regarding raising up (and hardening) and draws the second of his conclusions in v18. There can be little doubt about the movement of the Pauline argument in 9:618. It is clear and precise. Romans 9:19-24 Text {Rom 9:19} The objector of vv6 and 14 desires a greater explanation of what Paul has said in vv14-18 and the place of the questioner’s will in Paul’s theology. It was and is a common question108. The opponent is asking (paraphrased), “If God, and His will, is that sovereign over my works/will, how can I be faulted, or held responsible for what I do”? The weight of the perfect tense of “find fault”, , gives the force of a principal - “How could God now, or ever, find fault with me and my choices/will”? Paul expected this, as is seen with his, “You will say to me”, and he must have encountered it often. It is further interesting that the objector assumes, as he says, that none can resist (effectually stand against) God’s will109. This is a tell-tale that Paul must impart understanding and clarification, for man can resist God’s will in some fashion which makes the unbeliever responsible and accountable (see Acts 7:39,51; Neh 9:30; Is 63:10; Mt 23:31-33; Lk 19:41-44; and of course, Paul, Acts 9:5). Romans 3 4 108We need to remember, again, that each question assumes a truth, or truths, which give meaning and logic to the content of the question(s), Note: Romans 6:1, “Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound”? assumes Paul taught that grace does abound over sin in Christ (cf. 5:14b-19,21). Romans 6:15 – “Shall we continue in sin, because we are not under law, but under grace”? assumes, like Rom 6:1, that if we are not under Torah (e.g law), we can live as we please (e.g. antinomianism, so Paul’s answer rebuts this). Romans 7:7 – “What shall we say then: Is the law sin”? implies something Paul wrote previously makes a Jew deduce this – although in error (see Paul’s connection of sin→law in 7:5a). Romans 7:13 – “Is that which is good become death unto me”? assumes something Paul wrote previously would make a Jew deduce this – although in error (see Paul’s connection of law→death in 7:5b). Romans 9:14 – “What shall we say then: Is there unrighteousness with God”? assumes something Paul wrote previously makes us deduce this – although in error (cf. 9:11, and God’s choice apart from works). Romans 9:19 – “You will say unto me, why does He yet find fault? For who can resist His will”? assumes no man can resist God’s will, thus God cannot hold us responsible (cf. 9:14-18). Again, reading the questions in Romans, and their answers, will test the accuracy of our grasp of Paul’s doctrines in Romans (and other epistles). 109It is interesting that a pagan objector, like Nebuchadnezzar, came to believe in God’s absolute dominion (Dan 4:34-35). {Rom 9:20a} I believe in all of Scripture there is no harder question to answer than the one Paul places in front of our minds here, so we must consider the following in its context. One must keep in mind (and this is true for all Paul’s epistles), his familiarity and ease-of-use of OT Hebrew and the Greek Septuagint (LXX). A perfect example will be seen in Romans 10 where Paul, in arguing the righteousness of the law vs. the righteousness by faith, will use texts from Deut 30 and combine those textual proofs with a five-word phrase from Deut 9:4 – a phrase lifted right out of a much earlier chapter/context! As Paul was a Pharisee, every word, every letter, from every context in the OT would have been familiar to him110. Also, Paul would have been aware that of the diverse OT/NT reflections related to the questioner’s ideas of the infinite nature of YHWH and His will. Note: some of the probable sources of the Pauline perspective for the question in 9:19, “Why does he yet find fault? For who can resist His will”? Note:111 Romans 3 5 Solomon (Eccl 8:4, of a near-east king[s]), “Where the word of a king is, there is power: and who may say unto him: What are you doing”? Job (Job 9:12; 33:13): “Behold, He takes away, who can hinder Him? Who will say unto Him: What are you doing”? (9:12); “Why do you strive against Him? For He does not give an account of any of His matters” (33:13). Nebuchadnezzar (Dan 4:35), “All the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: He does according to His will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay His hand, or say: What are you doing”? The Lord Jesus (Mt 11:26; 20:15), [regarding God’s works] “Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in Your sight”; [Workers in the Vineyard]: “Is it not lawful for me to do with what is mine? Is your eye evil, because mine is good”? (this last clause is probably the most insightful to the question of 9:19 because of the style of answer Paul gives in 9:20). And Thus Paul (Rom 11:34-35), “Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been His councilor? Or who has given to Him, and it shall be recompensed unto Him”? Second, there are three points of powerful Pauline emphasis in the Greek of 9:20: 1) The first Greek word in Paul’s text, ,112 is an extreme word to either continue a line of thought or contrast a line of thought. Here, clearly Paul’s interest is in contrasting his answer of v20 with the question in v19. “Indeed? Contrarily” could be English translations as a contrast and emphatic rebuttal to the questioner. 2) The phrase “O man” is, like , a powerful tool of highlighting something important, as Paul uses with Timothy, and Paul’s “O Timothy!” (1 Tim 6:11) and “O man of God” (1 Tim 6:20). 3) In Greek, there are three ways to make a pronoun emphatic and stand out in a sentence: 1) since verbs in Greek contain the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd person sing/plural pronouns, you never need to actually write the pronoun of the verb. Thus, if you desire to emphasize the pronoun, you place I/you/he-she-it in with the verb (saying “you” twice as it were); 2) there are emphatic forms of words like “I/you”; 3) placing the word in front or in a unique or unusual place in a sentence (compared to the normal Greek sentence) also emphasizes the word (English example: Instead of ‘I hit Joe’ you write “Joe, I hit” emphasizing “Joe” more than the “I” of the sentence. Romans 3 6 All three techniques are used here by Paul in v20 with “you”, Greek . So, one should read “You, You, who are You…”!?. Therefore, the weight of the Pauline answer falls emphatically on you, “”. Paul, with his “You, who are you…”, seems to be answering the attitude of the questioner more than the question. Knowing that Christian learning takes a childlike heart even to enter the kingdom (Mt 18:1ff), humility is more requisite than knowledge, questions, and answers. Indeed, I think there is little difference between this questioner of 9:19 and the laborers of Mt 20:115. The questioner’s eye might be evil, as God’s goodness is expounded in Rom 9:15 from Ex 33:19. We shall see. But it seems that Paul is dealing foremost with the attitude and what might be a resentment in the heart of the questioner to his Creator. In short, Paul may just be repeating the lessons of Mt 20:15 where Our Lord references the bitter workers (and the equal monies given to all workers regardless of hours worked in Mt 20:1-14). In similar fashion, Paul seems to speak to vessels and their Maker in v20b-21, bitter vessels against the One who shaped them. Indeed, I think we can safely add to Paul’s “answer” of v19 in vv20-23 the implied, unwritten words, “What is that to you”? (Very similar to Our Lord’s words to Peter’s question in Jn 21:21-22). closest equivalent or similarity that I have seen in life to Paul’s OT knowledge is the Englishman and his Shakespeare – every phrase, every line is often put to memory, and known by heart. 110The 111There is a second basic truth besides God’s exercise of His sovereign will regarding man’s will, and that is man’s will exercise of his volition could not exist apart from the Biblical doctrine of man’s creation and existence via God’s will “in Him we live, and move, and have our being” (Acts 17:28; see Gen 2:7; Deut 32:39; 1 Sam 2:6; 2 Ki 5:7; Acts 17:25 etc.). Greek word  translated “Ney” (e.g. “indeed”) is a very emphatic particle of speech, made up of three words: a) “”, a word of contrast often used with  in a sentence to say, “on one hand” [, “on the other hand” [ as Paul will in 9:21b, contrasting the vessels of honor/dishonor; b) , which mean “therefore”; and c) , “indeed” (an emphatic particle). The other uses are Lk 11:28, “indeed”; Rom 10:18, “truly”; and Phil 3:8, “doubtless”.  is not used in the LXX. 112The {Rom 9:20b-21} Now Paul pulls from the OT a most basic illustration the potter and the clay. Paul is quoting from Jeramiah 18:1ff, Is 45:9 and the general knowledge of his 1st century readers. After his stern words of caution to the “one answering to God”, Paul answers a question with a question, “Does the thing formed say to the One forming: Why have you made me this way”? The material could be clay, cement, mortar, etc., but the emphasis is that the One who shapes the material is not instructed by the material shaped. Romans 3 7 In Genesis 2:7, the Hebrew word translated “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground” is the same word used in Is 45:9 (referenced above) when Scripture says: “Shall the clay say to him that fashioned it, ‘What are you making…’”? Just as important to note is that Is 45:9 begins with the sobering exhortation, “Woe unto him that strives with His Maker”! Thus, Paul may be taking the sovereign rights of the Creator all the way back to Adam. Paul stretches the argument of Potter/clay to a second question like the first: Doesn’t the Potter have authority (Greek, ) to make both vessels for honorable/noble use and others for ignoble/lesser use? The answer is selfevident. Paul follows his illustration with the theological details in vv22-23. {Rom 9:22-23} There are few Pauline passages as fraught with difficulty, both theological and emotional, as these two verses. One of the great difficulties of some passages like this one is, when there is to connecting word of a clause, it is a struggle at times to get Paul’s connecting word correct in translation. In our verse, we are given “if God”, Greek,    , but what is the connection between v20b-21 and vv22-23? The phrase “if God…” is used in Mt 6:30; Jn 8:42; 13:32; Acts 18:21; Rom 8:31; 9:22; 11:21; 2 Tim 2:25; Heb 6:3; 2 Pet 2:4; 1 Jn 4:11. In this list we have: texts which uses the phrase “if God wills…” (Acts 18:21; 2 Tim 2:25; Heb 6:3); texts that say, “if God” (did one thing)…some other related action will follow [logically], Mt 6:30; Jn 8:42; 13:32; Rom 11:21; 1 Jn 4:11113. 2 Pet 2:4-9 is slightly different, saying, “if God did not spare, but delivered up (implied, v4); “…did not spare, but delivered up…” (implied, v5); did not spare, but delivered up…, (implied), turned cities to ashes, and delivered Lot (v6-8); And thus, The Lord knows how to deliver…(v9). But Rom 9:22 seems unique. The one thing we know is this verse comes after a long string of “will(s)” (Rom 9:15,16,18,19,22,25). The whole context is about God’s will and man’s will. So, Paul had laid doctrinal groundwork about the will of God, and that God’s will is the moving force behind the recipients of promises, the choices of men, and the blessings and curses of mankind. He follows this by using an objector’s question to deal with the attitude in the query of 9:19-20a, linking his (Paul’s) answer with the illustration of the Potter and the clay (Rom 9:20b-21). But from 9:6-20a, the subject is the sovereign will of God – especially as it related to Israel. Thus Paul, having laid down the will of God in man’s events, continued to advance his justification of God’s acts by a “what if” scenario about God’s decrees. So, although there is always an opposite answer to the other texts listed above, the “what if God” here has an unwritten, implied answer which is not spelt out - that is, an answer which is self-evident. In short, Paul’s “what if God wanting to show forth His glory through a display of mercy and judgment” (akin to God’s dealings in v17 with Pharaoh to display His power and make His name known), the implied, unwritten answer is: Who shall say, “What are you doing? (Dan 4:34-35; Job 9:12 etc.). First, we are told that God is willing: 1) to display His wrath, and 2) make His power known (again, akin to Pharaoh). Second, this display only Romans 3 8 occurs and honors God through His infinite patience, for He has born with much longsuffering the acts of those vessels in the abuse of God’s goodness. These vessels were formed (the Greek participle,  [feminine passive participle of ] modifies the Greek word “vessel”,  [feminine]), and with these vessels, God has been patient with their abuses of His goodness. The result is the Greek word, , which is used of mending; that is, mending and thus completely fixing nets [Mt 4:21]), and this Greek word is the word describing the resultant nature of the vessel(s) of v22. Both God’s “Potter’s will” of Rom 9:11,16, 21 etc. and man’s will are part of the “completion” of the vessel with which God has been patient. Yet God will deal in just wrath with these vessels, and through them, display His glory in this wrath (cf. 2 Cor 2:14-16) just as Pharaoh. In 9:23, Paul gives the other side of the coin. There are vessels of mercy that God has “before prepared”, , unto glory and God’s fellowship. This work of God was to display, for His glory, the “riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy”. God is the active agent in “before preparing” vessels for mercy, seeing they were born dead in sin and lived slaves to sin (Eph 2:1; Jn 8:34). But God sent His Spirit to awaken them and draw them to Jesus Christ, where there is full and free mercy and forgiveness. Remember, the whole of Rom 9:21b-23 is to answer the question of God’s free-will activity in the various vessels of wrath and mercy. God is the author of this, but as men’s will is a part of the vessel’s character and nature, Paul must make sure that: 1) man’s will is a part of the vessel; and 2) God’s decree is the moving will - resulting in the final result according to His purpose. Because of the unfolding of 9:19-23, Paul surely puts this doctrine of God’s-will/man’s-will, and both how man still freely executes his will without coercion and God’s will is still effectual and absolute in man’s “willing”. This interworking of “wills” certainly comes under the truth in Deut 29:29, “The secret things belong to the Lord our God”! But Paul seems to feel the objector’s attitude in the question would be a hindrance unto holiness and therefore understanding (for we must become like little children), particularly the fruit of the Spirit’s work related to meekness (Gal 5:23). The final answer to 9:19: Thus, Paul’s answer to the questioner of Rom 9:19-20a deals with his attitude of non-childlikeness and submission to the Lord, which is also the key ingredients of the two similar statements to Rom 9:19, Job (Job 9:12) and Nebuchadnezzar (Dan 4:34-35). Therefore, to me the answer of the duel-wills question of v19 (God’s and man’s) and how their wills interact and function without negating the will of either, yet affirming the will of each - that the technical answer belongs to the sphere of Deut 29:29 and “the secret things (which) belong to God”. There is no explanation that I know of regarding the mechanism of how God’s absolute decrees are combined with our willing (e.g. our “decrees”) - are woven together, such that man’s true and responsible choices are just that – freely made, and thus accountable. This is particularly perplexing, seeing God’s power in upholding man and beast is essential to the Romans 3 9 exercise of his willing, as seen in Ps104:29, “You hide Your face, they are troubled: You take away their breath, they die, and return to their dust”. Thus, God’s power is required for man to exercise his personal will. So, there is an interaction of God and His power for man to will anything, but obviously not the reverse. I think is a mystery like unto Deut 29:29 and exemplified by such words as Solomon’s in Eccl 11:5, “As you know not what is the way of the spirit, nor how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child: even so you know not the works of God who makes all”. It is a mystery. In the end, our pattern for understanding Romans 9:19ff must be akin to its only parallel in Jn 21:21-22 - the words of Christ to Peter’s query regarding the apostle John, for: 1) there is “willing” in both (Jn 21:22 and Rom 9:22, the same interrogative, “”, is used in both verses); and 2) there is an improper attitude in both questions. The question of Peter, his idle curiosity etc. and the clear rebuke to him in Christ’s answer, “What is that to you? Follow me”. This answer contains the same Greek emphatic “” as the response of Rom 9:20** (i.e. Jesus’ response, “  ”, “You follow me”, and Paul’s response, “You (), who are you…”). The parallels seem to give insight. That seems the best way to understand part of Paul’s answer to question of 9:19. **See Greek notes, Romans 9:20a 113Three OT passages (Gen 28:20; Job 9:13; Jon 3:9) follow this same pattern of: 1) If God does one thing (in Gen 28:20, “if God will be with me…”), then, 2) “…I will come again”. {Rom 9:24} The will of God, known long ago with God’s promise to Abraham, included the promise and decree to redeem sinners from the whole world, or as the NT says, “to the Jew first and also to the Greek/Gentile (Rom 1:16; Gal 3:28; Col 3:11). Redemption and mercy were a work of God’s will unto all the earth as He swore to Abraham (Gen 12:3; 18:18; 26:4; 28:14; Ps 72:17; Rev 7:9). This verse is the last word of God’s redemptive will (Rom 9:6-23), and the first word and introduction of salvation unto the Gentile (9:25-33). Paul will use the quotes from the OT that show the those who were not God’s people, neither have they called upon the True God, would come to be His covenant people. The quotes that follow establish the doctrine Paul had been suggesting in the answer to the question of Rom 9:6a. Romans 3 10