6 Iron wrote:
Thanks, Gosso and Mountaineer. I will continue to delve.
I found some material in my Romans Commentary by Martin H. Franzmann that I believe is additive re the verses you mentioned. I will try to type it out and post in a day or so; it is a page or so in length. I'm really tired right now and my wife just came home from the hospital today with a new knee ... have to play caregiver now almost full time for a while.
Please let me provide some context for the material from the Romans Commentary, below, as well as some of my previous posts. Missouri Synod Lutherans are somewhat unique (my opinion based on my previous church experiences with ELCA Lutherans, Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians and classes taken dealing with Islam, Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy) in three aspects of understanding Scripture. First, there is a huge emphasis on understanding the differences between Law and Gospel - in short, Law is what God tells us to do and us used to make us realize that we are so desperately in need of a Savior, Gospel is what God has done for us and provides the sweet promise that God loves us and we are forgiven if we just do not reject the gift. Secondly, Lutherans believe that Scripture interprets Scripture with the clearer passages being used to understand the more vague passages; and in the inerrancy of Scripture but it must be understood in context - to me that means no cherry picking verses - read the whole section or Chapter and understand to whom the passage is being written and what was going on in the area at the time it was written. Thirdly, Lutherans emphasize the two kingdoms that God is in charge of, the vertical realm that deals mainly with God stuff (e.g. Word and Sacraments, one’s relationship with Jesus, etc.), and the horizontal realm that deals with civil stuff (e.g. politics, church organization and polity, relationships with one’s neighbors, etc.). It might also be useful to understand where I personally am “coming from”?; you can read my post describing my journey to Moda0306 many pages back in this thread and many other of my responses in this thread if you are interested.
Hope this helps.
From Martin H. Franzmann “Romans, A Commentary”?
Verse 10: The same sovereign freedom of the Word is apparent also, and more fully, in the story of the sons of Isaac. Rebecca was no slave concubine but the free wife of Isaac, and both or her twin sons were free.
11-12: But here, too, the Word of the promise determined everything; independent of any will or work of man, it made the choice between Esau and Jacob before the boys were born. It overrode the hallowed right of primogeniture, ordaining that the firstborn should be servant to the younger son. Here God’s purpose, God’s free choice, God’s call were wholly sovereign, independent of the will of man.
13: The history of the nations descended from the sons of Isaac confirmed what God’s Word had said of the nations Israel and Edom. Centuries later, God through Malachi could say, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated”? (Mal 1:2-3). Men and nations do not live by bread alone, nor by being begotten and being born alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. (Matt 4:4; Deut 8:3).
Paul speaks of “God’s purpose of election”? here (v. 11), but he is speaking of that purpose as it works in the history of men. He is not speaking here, as he spoke in 8:28-30, of the eternal predestination of God’s elect to righteousness and glory; he is not now uttering the doxology of the redeemed. Rather, he is showing how God freely chose Isaac and Jacob for the furthering of his purpose, to bless all the families of the earth, in order to make dear that all depends on Him and on His Word alone. His choice of Isaac does not of itself doom Ishmael to perdition; Ishmael, too, received a blessing from God (Gen 17:20; 21:13), and Ishmael, too, comes under the blessing promised to all the families of the earth in Abraham’s seed. God’s purpose of election does not mean that all Ishmaelites and Edomities were to be damned, no more than it means that all the descendants of Isaac and Jacob should be saved. Even the words from Malachi, “Esau I hated,”? must be understood in the light of their setting and in accordance with the Hebrew mode of speech. Malachi is spewing of the fate of Jacob and Esay as nations, not of their eternal weal or woe. And to “hate”? in Hebrew usage often means little more than the opposite of “prefer”? or “choose.”? In Gen 29:31 for instance, the words, “Leah was hated,”? simply restate what was said in Gen 29:30: “He loved Rachel more than Leah.”? This mode of speech is found in the New Testament too; to “hate”? one’s life, mother, wife, children, etc. means to surrender them, to love them less than Christ (Luke 14:26; cf Matt 10:37-39)
Still, Paul, in emphasizing the fact that the unbelief of physical Israel does not call in question the power of God’s Word to Israel, has spoken boldly, to the point of ambiguity. The question can arise: “Is God, then, unjust? Is not this freedom of His mere arbitrariness, a tyrannous assertion of His will because it is His will?”? Paul anticipates that question - see Romans 9:14-29.