Perhaps “clearly” was too strong? I was speaking as a Calvinist from an Arminian (soft-universalist) perspective, so I probably didn’t make much sense at all! And perhaps I am wrong in my reading anyway, but I followed the (Arminian) argument of Paul back to Hosea. I love Romans and couldn’t resist including some contextual information below because I think it is important to recognize what (I think) Paul is saying about the Jews and the Gentiles in his broader epistle to the Romans. And for me, it sheds light on what I think Hosea meant.
Paul is defending three propositions (from preceding chapters) that all (all individuals, both Jew and Gentile) are fallen, that none can be justified by Torah, and that all can be justified by faith in the Christ. This contrasts with the presumably popular belief that the Jews were saved by the works of Torah and by their descent from Abraham. If Paul’s propositions were true it would seem (subjectively for those Jews at least) that the Word of God had failed them (9:6). So Romans 9 is thus addressing this concern by dismantling the notion that the Jews were ever saved by their lineage.
Paul begins in verse six by noting that Ishmael, as a descendent of Abraham (and indeed the firstborn!) would be heir to the covenant blessings if it were given by seed. But covenantal blessings are not given by seed, but by promise (9:8). Thus Paul can say, “they are not all Israel [spiritual and of promise] who are of Israel [national and of seed]”. The promises to Abraham do not extend to his every blood-descendent, as the examples of Ishmael shows (although he is still blessed in Isaac). But lest one object that Ishmael was illegitimate, Paul continues to Jacob and Esau who were twins! One was elected that God’s purpose would be fulfilled, while the other would serve his younger brother. But just as Isaac and Ishmael referred to nations, so does Jacob and Esau (Israel and Edom), an argument supported by Paul’s use of quotations; Genesis 25:23: “(Two nations are in your womb, two peoples shall be separated from your body; one people shall be stronger than the other,) and the older shall serve the younger” and Malachi 1:2-3. (Incidentally, Paul’s use of the Malachian verse is actually a criticism of the haughty Jews, not of the Edomites – God loved Israel more, and yet they were at present (just as in Malachi’s time) under the judgement of God!)
This is largely what Paul meant with his comments on Pharaoh and the Clay (and says very little of any Calvinist individual predestination in my view). But all in all, Paul is noting that the Jews have absolutely no reason to be haughty about their lineage, works and sole inheritance of Yahweh’s blessings. They just didn’t get this because they were radical exclusivists. Just like Jonah. They had stumbled over the stumbling stone; the universal grace in Christ (offered to all; but accepted by all?). For God delivers the covenantal blessings by gracious promise alone through faith (9:32). The Hosean verse, in Romans at least, speaks of Yahweh calling people whom the Jews did not call Yahweh’s people; whom the Jews thought were outside of God’s love and blessings – the Gentiles.
If we follow this back to Hosea, we find that Hosea says much the same thing. He speaks of an increase of Yahweh’s favoured people (2:14-23), amidst the condemnation of an unfaithful Israel (2:3-13). Who else could Hosea be speaking of but those outside of God’s election in national Israel? It seems to me that while a restored remnant of national Israel would remain (the Jewish Christians), from this Yahweh would multiply to an innumerable amount the spiritual Israel (the Jewish and Gentile Christians). I think, this is the whole point of Hosea: that Yahweh loves the Hebrew nation despite their wickedness, will restore them and work to bring about even greater blessings for them and the Gentiles. Yahweh is just that amazing! (skin tingles).
So from a Calvinist perspective, the election of the flock does not directly relate to the acceptance of Gentiles (those who were not previously considered Yahweh’s people). Therefore, the Gentiles and Jews are merely two national categories of which the Elect may now fall within. Of course, Gentile-Jews may have been the elect since before Christ, but I think Paul is saying that they are now accepted outside of much Jewish religiosity (circumcision, animal sacrifice, lettered Torah, and so forth).
My conclusion may have totally unraveled because I have worked from an Arminian reading of Romans 9 to get a Calvinist explanation. It’s a Frankenstein Calv-minian view. And to be honest, I find it difficult working out what the Hebrew prophets actually mean most of the time, so I wholly concede I’m probably wrong on this! But I really welcome your thoughts and critique.
Godspeed,
Andrew
Is the point that God is a good shepherd to some and a hired hand to othesr? I can’t imagine this is the point.
I have some scripture to back that, the thing particularly coming to mind is where in Hosea he says something along the lines of, “Where it was said ‘you are not my people’, it will be said, ‘they are sons of the living God’.”
