Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to Thursday night Bible study. I am delighted that you have joined us. We happen to have an outline available for you that you can get it's there. If you're on worship I, it's on right down below. Or Randy white ministries, it's right down below. And if you are on YouTube, you can head on over to the connect site@randywhiteministries.org and see that all ready to go on the connect site. It's regular print or large print. If you're like me. Every time, every Thursday night I print it out and have it there. And then I think, why didn't I print the large print so I could actually read it? But there it is. You can use it to follow along or you can use it later on. I would love to say hello to you tonight at the end of the broadcast and see who's here, like Edith in Missouri and Mike in Missouri, strangely enough, but would love to say hi to you at the end of the broadcast. So stick in a chat a hello if you're watching live. Always an encouragement. Got a new little booklet, this one right here. By grace alone rethinking eternal rewards in Christian theology. And it's just a little what is it? 35 page four x six book about the whole crowns theory. You're going to get one of these crowns or five of these crowns when you die and go to heaven only if you've been good enough, even though you're saved by grace through faith, not of works, not of yourselves. So I'm giving it away. I'll put it on dispensational dispensational. I'll put it on Dispensational publishing also in case somebody wants to buy 100 of them or something like that. But I'm giving them away. If you give any donation, you'll automatically get it. You don't even have to request it. If you just like a copy, just send me an email, Randy@randywhiteministries.org, say, I want that grace alone booklet and I will get it off into the mail just for you. Now let's just get into bible study. How's that sound? After one more announcement, how's that sound? And that is, as you know, got to reach over here and get my pointer so I'll be all ready. As you know, we have the 9th annual labor day weekend bible conference and retreat. It is right division, issues and answers. Should be fun. I'm working on it already. Looking forward to it already as we come to look at right division and see how it addresses some of the great issues of Christianity, like Calvinism. We'll talk some about Calvinism tonight, like being a charismatic. We'll talk about that. We're going to look at several specific theologies that are historically problematic in Christianity and see how right division solves them. And then we're also going to look on issues and answers of right division. We're going to look at those who say it's heresy. You should run from it. Don't walk, run, get out of there. And we'll actually listen to some by videotape and see what they have to say about that and address their concerns, their issues, and try to get a solid basis for right division issues and answers. September 1 through four. Branson, Missouri would love to have you join us, but tonight we come in and we get into Romans rightly divided and look forward to that. And we'll just pick up tonight right here. We're actually in Romans, chapter nine. We'll begin in verse 17 here in just a moment and take a look from verse 17 through 24 of Romans, chapter nine. Now, you may of course, remember from last week, really, this is our third week now in Romans chapter nine. And we started out in this prayer in verses 12345 where Paul says, I wish myself were accursed for Christ, for my brethren, my kinsmen, who are the Israelites? It's pretty clear in chapter nine we're talking about the Israelites. And then in verse four, we had that interpretive rule, hermeneutical rule, that to the Israelites pertain the adoption and the glory. Now, those words right there are going to come up tonight. That's why I wanted to back up and remind you of verse four, the Israelites to whom pertaineth the glory. Okay, then he goes on in verses four and five about some things that are theirs. And then the argument that we started last week in verse six that goes on really through verse 29, and we're only going to make it through verse 24 tonight. And this is the argument that Paul wants to lay forth. But before I even tell you this argument of verse six, let's give the overview of the book of Romans very quickly, like 60 seconds or less, paul comes and says, I love what God is going to do with the Jewish people. I am not ashamed of that at all. But he says, the Jewish people have rejected Him. They've rejected their king, they've rejected their kingdom. And so God has come in to do something else in the interim. He's got a new period, a new age, a new dispensation, and that is a dispensation by which in which a man is not justified by the law, but by grace. And it's a gift that God has given. Oh, my goodness, Paul, you've got to be kidding. God just giving something as a gift? Yes, Paul says, just like he did to Abraham, you don't have a problem with that, do you? Just like he did with David. You don't have a problem with that, do you? In those covenants that he made, they said, well, no, I guess we don't have a problem with that. So, okay, God can do this new thing. But what about us now? What are we, chop liver? That's what people always consonate. What are we? We're here with with nothing left. And so Paul, in Romans 910 and eleven, says, okay, let me tell you about the Israelites. And he starts out in verse six by saying, it's not as though the word of God have taken none effect, for they're not all Israel which are of Israel. That is to say, look, God's Word hasn't failed. God is going to come through on His Word. Even though God is doing this new thing that's neither Jew nor Gentile, this new thing that is outside the covenants and Commonwealth of Israel, this new thing that's not of the law anymore, even though that he is doing this new thing by grace through faith, that doesn't mean he's not going to deliver on his promises. God, it's not as though the word of God have taken none effect. He hadn't pulled out the rug from under you. But he says you need to remember they're not all Israel which are of Israel. That is to say, God has some promises to give to Israel, but he doesn't have to give it to every single Jew and he can be faithful to His Word and not deliver his promises even to this generation. And so his argument right here, for they are not all Israel which are of Israel, is the argument that God can delay on his promise and not be a failure in His Word, not cause His Word to be void. So he builds that argument in verse seven, he says, hey, not all Abraham's children were of Israel, right? And down in verse ten, not all of Isaac and Rebecca's children received the promise, right? Only one of them, Isaac and God in his sovereignty said, the elder shall serve the younger Jacob. I loved Esau, I hated. We talked about this last week. And so verse 14, then what shall we say? Is there unrighteousness with God? Was God wrong to do anything? Now he says that, I think in part because he knows that they're going to say no. Absolutely. I mean, God was non righteous at all in choosing to reject Ishmael or choosing to reject Esau, that's perfectly righteous of God. So he's building this case to say, okay, could God choose to reject this generation of Jews today in the first century? Well, maybe, but I'm not convinced. So he continues on with the argument and he says to Moses, I'll have mercy upon whom I'll have mercy, I'll have compassion upon whom I will have compassion. They couldn't argue with that. I mean, it's in the Torah. He said that to Moses. So they said yeah, okay. And verse verse 16, where we left off last week, it is not of Him that willeth, nor of Him that runeth, but of God that showeth mercy. So the idea right here is, hey, Israel, can't God determine when to show mercy and when not to show mercy? Yeah, he can. Okay, can he then determine to delay on his promise and still be true to His Word? Yeah, I guess he can. That's the argument of Romans chapter nine, as he's beginning to lay out, let me tell you what is going to happen to Israel. And so then, as that continues, we pick up now in verse 17, as he again continues in this argument, and see if I can get all 17 on there. I'm not sure I can. He says, for the Scripture saith unto Pharaoh, even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might show my power in thee, and that my name might be declared in all the earth. Okay, this picture of Pharaoh, of course, has it's quoting from Exodus chapter nine, verse 16, and it is to show that God has the ability to, shall we say, punish a person in this case if he wants to, in order to accomplish his purpose. Yeah. The pharaoh. Now, again, the Jewish people were kind of happy that God did with this, with the Pharaoh. So they're not going to argue with God on that. Yeah, sure, he can do it to the Pharaoh. Remember, he's coming around to say, well, if he can do it to the Pharaoh, can he do it to you? And this is where he's leading, and he knows where he's leading in this, a very good argument that he gives here. Now, some people, shall we call them Calvinists, want to take Romans chapter nine as really the heart of the foundation for their Calvinism. I think Calvinism, first of all, is built upon a tremendously flawed assumption and then a very weak argument. I know it can look like, whoa, boy, that's just as strong as you can get. But I think when you analyze it, it's not. It's a flawed assumption and it's a weak argument. And so you come into Romans chapter nine, and of course, a Calvinist would say, look, God chose Pharaoh for his damnation. He can choose you for your damnation as well. Not me, I'm one of the elect. But he could choose you for all of this, and they use this. Now, I would remind you that something that we have said a number of times, and that is that a historical anecdote should not be used to make a doctrine. You might use a historical example to help prove a doctrine or to display a doctrine, but it does not teach a doctrine. Doctrine comes from doctrinal passages. This is not a doctrinal passage. So he comes, he's giving this example of Pharaoh, and he's continuing again this argument that God can do something bad for one to bring about something good in his overall plan and purpose. And indeed, that's what he's doing for Israel. In verse 18, therefore hath he mercy upon whom he will have mercy, whom he will he hardness. Okay? God will show mercy to whom he wants to show mercy, he'll harden. Whom he wants to harden is again the clear word that is given. Now, God is sovereign, and this is a summary of God's sovereignty. Can't God be merciful if God wants to be merciful? Yes. Can't God be tough judgmental filled with wrath and vengeance, harden someone's heart? If he wants to? Yes, he can. By the way, the Calvinists, again, want to take this. And every time somebody's got a hard heart, see, God does. God's just hardened their heart. It's all God's issue here. Every time someone rejects their very poor presentation of the Gospel, well, it's because just got a hard heart, always putting it off on God, giving them a hard heart. Do you know that in the Scripture, pharaoh is shown to have a hard heart? And the Canaanite kings, in the time of the judges are shown to have a hard heart. And King Sihon mentioned by name, we don't know much about him. He's in Deuteronomy, chapter two, verse three, and mentioned again in Jude, chapter chapter I say chapter eleven, verse 20. But since there's only one chapter in Jude, I'm pretty sure that's chapter one, verse 20, that King Sehon is mentioned as having a hardened heart. So you got this handful, the kings, the Pharaoh, King Sihon that says God hardened the heart other than the nation of Israel. There were times when God hardened the heart of the nation of Israel, but every time it was to accomplish a specific task really related to Israel. So if as a Calvinist, you come and you're trying to bring the argument that God just hardens Tom, Dick and Harry out there, I think that you really don't have Scripture going on your behalf here very much. But clearly we would say, yeah, he can have mercy upon whom he would have mercy. Harden whom he would harden. Verse 19, thou will say then unto me, why doth he yet find fault for who hath resisted his will? Now, it's almost as if Paul comes here and brings an imagined reaction from a skeptic. There's someone out there who is saying, okay, if God is the one doing all this, god's hardening Pharaoh's heart. Well, you and I have had the question before, right? Why does he yet find fault? He is God. Let's just put God in there. Why doth God yet find fault if he's the one that hardened the heart? Let's take Pharaoh. God says, Pharaoh, your heart is hardened. Now can God come and say, shame on you, Pharaoh, for having a hardened heart? Wouldn't you agree with me that that's a decent question, right? If God does something, shouldn't he be the one that's responsible for doing it? And so he brings up this that will say, then why does he yet find fault for who hath resisted his will? Let's separate that into these two parts. Now, the typical Calvinist response is that God decrees, but man is responsible. That is very much a Calvinist doctrine. God makes the decree, but man is responsible for the decree as if he chose it himself. The Calvinist would say, well, yeah, absolutely. That makes perfect sense. It only makes perfect sense in your make believe world of Calvinism. It doesn't make perfect sense anywhere else. There's literally no scenario on earth in which that would ever make sense anywhere else. Here's the guy that chose to that made the decision that this guy would do exactly this, but this guy's fully responsible. That guy. No. Oh, my goodness. He is pure as the driven snow. I don't know if you pay to have someone else murdered. Are you responsible? I never touched a gun in my life. Right? No. You go into jail. So the person who makes the decree, they're responsible. I don't know an example where that's not true except Calvinism, which has this make believe world. And so here comes this objection. Why does God yet find fault? Now, I'm going to tell you in a moment that Paul's on our side on this. He agrees with me. How about that? Maybe I should say I agree with Paul. I don't know. But what you've got here is that the Calvinists come here and they have a make believe doctrine, well, called Calvinism, but then they have another make believe doctrine to support their make believe doctrine. Their doctrine is that God decrees, but the one to whom it's decreed is fully responsible. God is completely innocent of the whole thing. And Calvinism, by the way, does absolutely believe that if you spit on someone in anger that God made you do that, that God declared that to be there is absolutely nothing. Nothing. I'm understating it. There is nothing which God did not decree. That is Calvinism. And by the way, if you say now that's not Calvinism, then you don't know what Calvinism is, or you've rejected Calvinism or whatever. Don't call yourself a Calvinist if you say that God doesn't decree everything because Calvinism is God decrees, absolutely every single thing that ever has, will, or should take place is going to take place if somebody goes and brutally murders a baby, smashing their heads against the rock. God did that, but he is absolutely not responsible for that at all. This is the heinous God and the Heinous doctrine that Calvinism has come about now to support all this. How in the world can God be innocent? I mean, it says right there. Why did he yet find fault? If he caused that guy to crush his baby's head on a rock, why isn't he responsible? That's what a responsible person asks. By the way, the Calvinist comes along and says it's the doctrine of compatibility. It's sickening. Honestly, it's sickening. Come on, Calvinist, I'll take you on right now. Let's do it right. It's God ordained. Now. It really is sickening that they come up with this doctrine of compatibility, which the doctrine of compatibility is again, a made up doctrine to say, man certainly has completely free will, and God certainly has decreed absolutely everything he is going to do. And this is compatible. Compatible because it's compatible. It's compatible, that's why. Because it's a doctrine of compatibility. So it's compatible. It's not compatible. And Paul addresses the issue right here. Then wilt say, thou wilt say then unto me, why doth he yet find fault? Well, of course, that's what you're going to say to me now. The Calvinists would say, oh, don't say that, don't say that at all. I mean, don't, don't put God to blame. You know what Paul's going to say? Paul's going to say, yep, God's the one that did it and God will own it. God hardened Pharaoh's heart and he's not embarrassed of it at all. God, loved Jacob and hated Esau. Period. There, I said it. God owns it, it's his. Yeah, I did that. I chose Isaac and I did not choose ishmael that's mine? That's my decision, wasn't it? It didn't have anything to do with Ishmael. In fact, earlier he said it didn't have anything to do with Jacob or Esau. They weren't even born yet. I did it. The Calvinist again wants to say, no, God, don't do that. God plead to fifth. Be quiet. Here what you say. Canon will be used against you. It's the doctrine of compatibility. Now thou will say, why does he yet find fault? Good question. For who hath resisted his will? That is to say, how's Pharaoh to get out of this? God hardened his heart. How's he going to resist that? Pharaoh stuck in the matter, right? So it brings this out and again, the Calvinists give this illogical response to it. But basically what Paul says and Paul's argument paul's not arguing Calvinism here. And this is one of the problems. This is why the Calvinists get in trouble, because they're trying to argue Calvinism from a passage of scripture that's not arguing calvinism. This is not about whether you and I are predestined or not. This is about what God is doing to Israel right now. And God, if he wants to diminish Israel and raise up a new body, a new thing that's neither Jew nor Gentile, he can do that. If he wants to do it, own it. It's your decision, God, but you're sovereign, right? And you can do it. And we Israel, first century Israel, we can't resist that, we can't fight against that. But hey, this is God's thing. We're going to let him, we're going to let Him carry this out. That aligns with some other passages of Scripture, like, let's say Job, chapter nine, verse twelve, where Job says, behold, he taketh away. Oops says down here, behold, he taketh away. Who can hinder him? Who will say unto him, what DOST thou that who can hinder him? Echoes back to verse 19 again, doesn't it? Who's going to be able to go up against what God decrees? Let's look at another one. Let's consider Daniel, chapter four, verse 35. This is Nebuchadnezzar speaking in Daniel 435, which says, all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing. He doth according to his will, and the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth, none can stay his hand or say unto him, what DOST thou? This is Nebuchadnezzar, recognizing he doth according to his will, nobody can go up against what God's doing. Right. And that's the argument of Romans, chapter nine. So let me get back here to Romans nine, verse 19. And here's what you say. Yeah. Thou will say unto them, why doth he yet find fault for who hath resisted as well? I'm going to try to show you that God says, Good for you. Yeah, exactly. Figured it out. Thumbs up on you. So he comes along, and at first you may say, oh, no, he's telling him, don't say that. But I'm going to argue that he's not. Nay, nay, but O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing form say to the thing that formed it, why hast thou made me thus? Okay, this nay, but let's talk about Nay, but. How can you blame Pharaoh when God made the decree, Nay, but somewhat confusing. He says the nay, but and then he proceeds to, we'll say, Chastise, the one who wants to kind of go up against God, which kind of argues that nay, but doesn't mean, oh, you're wrong. Maybe it means, oh, you're right. Can you say, Pharaoh, it's your responsibility. Nay, but can Pharaoh, the thing formed, say, Why did you do this? No, can't say that either. It is. What is? I mean, Nebuchadnezzar and Pharaoh, they were probably in the same club, and he realized that. Now, I think the key to understanding this passage is to correctly interpret the phrase nay, but let me come over here to the outline that I've got here and get to verse 19. Excuse me. Verse 20. Not sure how well you can read this, but it is this paragraph right here in your outline that I want you to know. The key to understanding this passage is to correctly interpret the introductory phrase nay, but Paul uses the Greek word mine. You got that? It's a compound word that could literally be translated indeed, therefore. Indeed, therefore, minus the word for indeed. OOH is the word for therefore. Indeed, therefore. The Derby translation says, I, but his English is showing through i, but. Okay, catch that. You will say, how can you blame favor when God did it? I. Exactly. But let's talk about something else. The nay is we don't need to dwell on this. Yeah, sure. Indeed. But let me go on. The Darby translation. Translates IBut. While there is not this is important. While there is not an explicit negative in the word of the sentence, it does inherently affirm the point of verse 19. Essentially, it says that God is responsible for what God decrees, but who are we to reply against God? So that menuje. What I want to point out is in all the Greek you can analyze the Greek all you want. There isn't a negator for the statement of verse 19. Nothing negates. It in fact, it kind of affirms it. And if you look at all the times that menujay is used in the scripture, you'll see it's. Really? Yeah, indeed. Of course, moving on is the word. It's like, okay, I don't have a problem with that, no problem. But here's what I want us to talk about. So that nay, but is a little bit confusing. But it's like, nay, I'm good with it, no problem. But goes on talking about the shall the thing formed say to the thing that formed it, why has you, why hast thou made me much? And the idea is, hey, God is not obligated to deliver upon his kingdom, to deliver his kingdom promises right then and there to that particular group of people. And there's really only one who owns this problem, and that is God alone. So shall the thing formed say to him that formed it? I think this is the only two times that formed and the thing formed and that which formed it only two times that it's used here in the scripture. Actually, the thing formed the Greek word. I just think this is kind of interesting as a student of words, the Greek word is plasma. Plasma. We use plasma in a lot of different ways, and I don't totally understand plasma, especially if you talk about, I don't know, in the electronic world, the plasma, or you got blood plasma flowing, but it all has the idea of something that is shaped. Something that is shaped. Not just created, but it's very much a shaped word. Okay, so he could have said, and he kind of gave this argument earlier in Romans, chapter one, can the thing created argue against its creator? But here he uses even more precise words about the forming of the mind in the heart of the Pharaoh. And can the plasma, the thing formed and say to the one that formed it, by the way, we get the word plastic out of all this. The placeo actually is how you should put that, the one who is the former. And of course, it's using the idea of clay here. So that word fits very well. So, yeah, I don't have a problem with verse 19. You say, why does he yet find fault? You're right. The point is not whether or not Pharaoh is saved or damned, as we think of it today. And this is the problem with Calvinism. It has accepted Covenant theology in which all they ever think about is this individual saved or not saved. And this is not about that. God's got a bigger plan. God is doing something with Israel back in the days of Pharaoh, certainly, of course. And now he's doing a different thing. And does God have the ability to do that? Yeah. Can God decree that Pharaoh is going to have a hard heart so that God can carry out what he wants to do with Israel? Yeah. Pharaoh is the thing formed and God is the thing forming. Can't argue with that. Is God not responsible? Nay. Of course God's responsible for that. He's the one making the decision on it. It's only logic. And so we get now to verse 21. Hath not the potter power over the clay of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor and another to dishonor? He comes and he gives this, I don't know, you might call it an everyday illustration of the potter and the clay. Even though most of us don't deal with pottery and clay on a day to day basis, we can still understand. I mean, we've seen that enough to know, oh, yeah, you take a lump of clay, you make something wonderful out of it. And it is the potter that has the power. This is the issues, the sovereignty of God, not in the matter of individual salvation, but the sovereignty of God. In the sovereignty of God, can't God decide to do what he wants to do? That's what he's arguing. And the whole purpose of arguing it is to say, hey, guess what, Israel, god is not going to deliver his kingdom promises to us today. Can God do that? Sure he can. Ask Pharaoh. God can do what he wants to do. He can definitely do it. Ask Nebuchadnezzar if you want. Ask job if you want. Yeah, God can do what God wants to do. That's his argument has nothing to do with my salvation. My salvation. Your salvation is not found in Romans chapter nine, simply not there. So he gives this particular illustration again of the potter and the clay, and that looks a little bit like just an everyday illustration. I want to argue that it is more than an everyday illustration, but that it's an illustration which a biblically astute Jew would have said, oh, he's talking about us, he's talking about Israel. And the familiar passage I'll go to is Jeremiah, chapter 18, which says, I got chapter eight. Excuse me. Jeremiah, chapter 18. The word of the Lord came from Jeremiah to Jeremiah from the Lord, saying, arise, go down to the potter's house, there I will cause thee to hear my words. I went down to the potter's house and behold, he wrought a work on the wheels, and the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter, so he made it again. Another vessel has seemed good to the potter to make it. I wonder if God's just giving to Jeremiah this pretty pastoral picture of pottery making and oh, that's so comforting. No, Jeremiah is a prophet, and the prophecy a Jew would have known the prophecy was that, wait a minute, Israel, god's going to set aside the clay. He's going. To bring it back. He's going to remake it. That's what Paul's arguing. So we continue then. Verse five. The word of the Lord came unto me, saying, o house of Israel, can I not do with you as with this potter, saith the Lord, behold, as the potter's clay is in the potter's hand, so are ye in my hand, O house of Israel. So back to Romans, chapter nine, verse 21, when Paul says, hath not the potter power over the clay, the same lump to make a vessel of honor and another of dishonor that shouted Jeremiah, chapter 18. They just would have known that. For example, you all are advanced students of the Taos Theological Seminary, and you wouldn't even have to be advanced if I were to say, let me tell you a story about a man who had a dream and the sheaves of corn were bowing down to him. Then the sun and the moon and the stars were bowing down, you'd immediately say, oh, he's talking about the Genesis, that thing back there with Jacob, Joseph and them, that's what was going on. You would know it. Well, I think that Israel knew Jeremiah the prophet, and they knew the stories of Jeremiah the prophet, and they knew that Jeremiah had pictured back in those days, had pictured the nation of Israel as clay and God as the potter. And so this had those echoes that it was embedded within them. So hath not the potter. They know that's God power over the clay, they know that's Israel and this is Paul's argument all along. God has sovereignty over Israel, he can do with Israel. That what he wants to do with Israel. And by this time, probably a lot of them are saying, oh, okay, I guess so. Now, verse 22 gets kind of interesting. What if God willing to show his wrath and to make his power known, endured with much long suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction? That he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had a four time afore prepared for glory. Even us, whom he hath called not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles. Now, I want us to put those three verses together and that's about where we'll stop. But let's take this and try to figure it out. Now at first reading, here's what you want to say. What if God willing to show his wrath and make his power known, endured with much long suffering, the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction. You might say, oh, he's talking about Pharaoh. He endured with long suffering. Pharaoh fitted unto destruction, and yet God didn't endure with much long suffering for Pharaoh. Pharaoh probably would have been happy to have a little more long suffering. Endurance on God's part didn't last long, the whole thing, it's hard to call this Pharaoh. So maybe you say, oh, this is when he's struggled with stiff necked Israel back in the wilderness or sometime. What if he did that in order that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy aforehand prepared unto glory. Okay, god was he struggled with Israel before, but he was patient so that now he might bring forth his glory, but doesn't really fit his argument. Kind of kind of comes out of sorts from where he was. Now, I want us to read it differently. What if? What if game. What if? You ever play a what if game? What if I won the lottery? What if what if I was a fantastic singer? What if all the what ifs game. I think Paul is, in a sense, playing a what if game now what if games don't have to be, but they're typically for the future. What if tomorrow this happened now? What if God willing to show his wrath and make his power known? I want to change this for a moment. What if, instead of showing his wrath and make his power known, instead he endured or he will endure? What if he endured, with much long suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction? What if this puts this in future tense? Now you say, well, it can't be future tense because endured is in the past tense. However, endured is not in the past tense. Endured is in the arist tense. We've talked about it many times, but just in case you forgot, arist is a point in time tense, and arist can be past, present, or future. It's just a point in time. The challenge is that English doesn't have an arist tense. So I've talked even last night in the Mark Bible study, I talked about the need to keep the tenses the same as they are in the original, which is great as long as you've got that same tense to put it into. Like last night, we were talking about the present tense. We have a present tense, but we don't have an arist tense, which means that in order to translate from Greek to English, you have to make a decision of a different tense to put it in. Often the decision is to put the heiress into the past tense, but we even use the past tense to talk about future scenarios at times. So if you and I were playing a what if scenario, I could say, what if we all go to Branson September 1 through four. What if? Nathan, I think we have a little static coming through there. I'm not sure where that is. What if we all went to Branson? Oh, I just slipped ahead, didn't I? You didn't even notice. You didn't just immediately say, oh, he was talking about last year. What if we all went to Branson, went his past tense. What if we all went but I'm talking about this year. What if we all I'm not talking about last year. What if we all went, although that would have been nice, too. What if we all went to Branson? What if God endured with much long suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction? This is to say, what if my scenario is right? What if God didn't show his wrath? What if God didn't make his power known but willing to do that? Rather he endured. What if? What if he endures or will endure with much long suffering the vessels of wrath fitted unto destruction? Now, that is to say, hey, ladies and gentlemen of the Jews, paul says, I'm arguing that. I'm telling you that God's given this new day, new age, new dispensation, the dispensation of the grace of God, he's doing something outside of Israel. Can God do that? Sovereign? He doesn't have to give to this generation of Israel. I mean, he didn't give to Ishmael, he didn't give to Jacob. And furthermore, God, if he wants to accomplish a purpose in the world, yeah, he can do it. Remember Pharaoh, all that story? So God yeah, certainly God can do that if he wants to, right? Yeah. And is God responsible for what he does? Absolutely. He's responsible for what he does. Okay, so Paul says, well, what if then what if God decides to delay the day of Jacob's trouble? What if God pushes off the tribulation, the day of the Lord, the judgment and the kingdom? What if he does that? And if he does that during this time, for those of us who are Jews, during this delay, what if he just endures with long suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction? That is to say, hey, if God comes right now on Israel, he going to get us. We're vessels of wrath. But what if he doesn't show his wrath, if he doesn't make his power known, but instead he endures with long suffering? What if? Could that happen? And I think they would have to say, well, yeah, you've laid a pretty good case to say, I guess God can do that if he wants. I mean, it's not man who runs, it's God. We're not the potter, we're the clay. So, yeah, he could do that. Now, in that scenario, then that would align with passages like two, Peter, three, verse nine. Now remember, second, Peter was written a long time later, and Peter said, the Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness, but is long suffering. Sounds kind of like what if the Lord endured the vessels of wrath. Peter later says, the kingdom hasn't come. In fact, that's the next verse, the day of the Lord will come. It hasn't come, but the day of the Lord will come. What if God endures with long suffering to us word the vessels of wrath because he's not willing that any should perish, but he wants all to come to repentance, speaking of the kingdom. And I think in that day, by then, israel was they weren't going to repent. You come to a point where you've dug your heels in enough that you will not turn around. God knows they're not turning around. So I either destroy them or what if I just endure? God says or Paul says, hey, what if God endures? He just endures with long suffering these vessels of wrath. Peter comes along years later and says, hey, you know what I think God is doing? I think he's enduring with long suffering us not willing that any of us should perish. He wants all of us to come to repentance, and nobody in the nation is wanting to do that right now. So he is waiting. The day of the Lord will come out there in the future, but it's not now. So back to Romans, chapter nine, verse 22. What if God willing to show his wrath and to make his power known? What if he endured future tense, not saying what if back there with Pharaoh, he endured? Well, he didn't. None of the illustrations he's given, is there any picture of God enduring with patience the vessels of wrath. This has got to be a future tense, by the way, if you're stuck on that and you say, no, I just can't take endured to be the future. I've given you a few passages, we won't look at them, but matthew 20 415, John 421 1st. Thessalonians 415 are three of many that use the heiress in the future to talk about something in the future. Very clearly, this can be the future. So it's Paul's what if scenario. Okay with that what if scenario, then it goes on. You got to take 22, 23 and 24 together. So what if he if he was long suffering and that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy which he had prepared, which he had a four prepared unto glory. Okay, let's back up and put this together. What if God endured that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy which he had a fore prepared. Now, I'm going to interpret this way, and then let me give you my defense of it. So God doesn't destroy first century Israel. He endures with long suffering. He does it in order that someday he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy that also is Israel, future Israel, the Israel upon which he's going to be merciful to God. Paul says this generation is not going to get it, but I'll have mercy upon whom I'll have mercy, and I'll harden those on going to harden. So he says, I'm going to harden this first century Israel, but I am going to show the riches of My glory on the vessels of mercy. The future Israel right there, which he had afore prepared a predestination there, unto glory. Remember, I started out and I told you to remember it in verse four to the Israelites pertaineth the adoption and the glory. So we've got this argument here that Paul says, hey, what if God doesn't deliver on his promises right now? What if instead he just endures with patience, long suffering, in order that someday on a future Israel, the vessels of mercy, he might pour out the riches of his glory. He might bring those that were prepared unto glory. To glory. Well, I think that biblically. You could only argue that it was the Israelites, the nation of Israel, that nationally was called to glory. And someday Paul says, what I'm talking is temporary. That's his whole argument of 910. Eleven. What I'm talking is temporary, a temporary blindness, a temporary diminishing of Israel. What if God does this? Is that okay with you? He says that God would endure, not deliver later, deliver those whom he deliver the promises, deliver to the vessels of mercy which he hath afore. Prepared unto glory. To Israel belongs the glory. All looks good till you get to the next verse. You say, well, who are those which he had for prepared unto glory? He says, Even us, whom he has called not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles. Wait a minute, bald headed preacher. You've been arguing if you didn't catch it. Let me tell you what I've been arguing. I've been arguing. Paul says God's not going to deliver to this generation of Israel. He's going to deliver to another generation of Israel. He's going to delay paul's arguing that this first century generation of Israel are vessels of wrath, the chosen ones prepared for his glory is the future generation of Israel. Even us, the future generation of Israel right here whom he hath called. But then he says, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles. Well, that sounds like the Church, but I don't think this is about the Church. So how in the world can he say this if that's not about the church? Now, it goes into the understanding of a couple of the word Jew and Gentile, first of all. But let's lay the Hermeneutical rule here, those who were prepared unto glory. Verse four is the Hermeneutical rule. The glory belongs to the Israelites. Verse four is as clear as day. You always take the clear Scriptures over the foggy Scriptures, the simple Scriptures over the hard Scriptures. Verse four is a simple scripture. The glory belongs to Israel. And you could find 152 I made that number up verses in the Bible that says the glory belongs to Israel. Israel, my glory. Israel is the one prepared unto glory. But here it looks like the church is prepared unto glory. The body of Christ. We are the ones he called, you know, called among the Gentiles. But I'm convinced that you and I are misunderstanding these words right here. Not of the Jews, but also of the Gentiles. Now, in the Bible, there's only one set of terms that means Jew and gentile, and that is the term circumcised or uncircumcised. That one. There's no interpretation at all. The circumcised are the Jews, the uncircumcised are the non Jews. Here he doesn't use that. If here he said not only of the circumcised but also the uncircumcised, then I would have to say throw out my argument is absolutely wrong. But that's not what he says. Then what we should remember is that the word Jew as an ethnic religious group didn't exist in the New Testament. It's an anachronism. Obviously, the English language didn't exist. But even in the English language, it wasn't until the Middle Ages that English began to use the word Jew. And what it says here, let's see if we can find it over here in the Greek verse 24 right here. Ek udayos. Ekudaos. Ek means out of. I could hear you all collectively saying it out of in fact, out of the midst of how it would be used. Ek Udayas out of Judea. Yeah. Those prepared beforehand for glory are those of us Jews, not only the Judeans only, but also just come right over here. Well, there's a word missing in this interlinear ek. Ek is the word missing there, but it's there. Ek. We'll pretend like it's this one right here. Ek ethnos out of the gentiles ethnos nations. I've given you on your outline some examples. We won't look at them, but there's some examples of eudeos translated as out of Judea and there's examples of ethnos being translated nations. So could we put it this way? Those of us whom he called not only those who are in Judea, but also those who are scattered out among the nations, you guys, those of you Roman Jews, it includes that too, the scattered twelve tribes out of the nations. Now, not only does that fit theologically, because I think theologically I could win the debate. If we're going to argue who has been a fore prepared unto glory, that's Israel. And linguistically, I think I could win the debate. Jew is ekudaeus out of Judea. Ek ethnos out of the nations. You got this nation, you got all those nations out of this nation, out of all those nations, jewish people out of the out of Judea. Jewish people scattered around in the Diaspora. That's what it got. There's one more linguistic argument here, and that is the word eck. We talked about this last night as well. Ek and APO, when we were talking about the baptism of Jesus coming up out of the water. Eck is to come out of the center of APO is to come from amongst he uses the word ek. Ek would be the word you would use only if it was like inside the innards of the gentiles. He's called some out of the insides of gentiles that don't work. If he meant he called some away from the Gentiles, he would use the word APO. APO. But if you were to say, hey, he's calling some of the Jews who live right in the heart of Rome to come out of Rome, well, you'd use the word ek. I think ethnos here is a word that supports the national argument, not the body of Christ, right here. Now, next week we'll pick up in verse 25 and speak about this passage from Hosea. And let's see another prophet here. I forgot which one. Oh, Isaiah comes down here. He's going to speak in the final verses of this argument about Hosea and Isaiah. Would anyone like to guess? I tell you what, if you can guess and request this book, I'll send it to you free. Would anyone like to guess who the prophet Hosea writes about and who the prophet Isaiah writes about? You, sir. I heard that. I heard you say they wrote about Israel. And Paul is going to use Hosea and Isaiah to prove I'm talking about Israel, a future generation of Israel, and I hope that that helps you out. I didn't really go through the charts here tonight. We're in Romans chapter nine through 1021. Actually 1136, 910. Eleven is God's work through Israel. But we're in this section of Paul's prayer and God's plan for Israel in the dispensational, change and beyond. So what is up in the dispensational, change and beyond? And Paul is arguing, hey, it's not this generation, it's a future generation. He's going to include, I'll say all twelve tribes. They are going to come and they are going to be used of him, and they will see his glory, because unto Israel belongs the glory. Glad that you were part of us, Nathan. I'll let you refresh and get it all fixed up there. And I would love to give greetings in just a moment and of course, look forward to having you in Branson or wherever it may be that we see you. The Taos Prophecy Conference. Did you get our newsletter? I sent out a newsletter. If you didn't get that, you can email me and request that also. That's Randy@randywhiteministries.org just say, hey, I want the newsletter and I want by grace alone, and I will be happy to give it to you. I like what Mike said. What if God decides to come tonight? I'm going to put it in the past tense. What if God decided to come tonight? See, we use it in the we don't have the heiress, but we use it in sort of that heiress. Remember the old song, what if it were today? What if it were today? So what if God endured? Let's see who's here tonight. Say hello to like Jim in Piedmont, South Carolina, always with us here and it's a blessing. The binners in Inkerman, Pennsylvania. God bless you. Bill has moved from Cypress, Texas, to Tupalo, Mississippi tonight. At least. Glad you're here. Neil in Vulcan, Alberta. What's up with all those fires going on in Canada? It's probably not in Vulcan, part of Canada. Wabashaw, Minnesota. Thanks for being here, Maryland. And Roger sholo Arizona. Everett's, back home tonight. Glad you're there. Debbie and Darryl in Crystal Springs, Mississippi. Deb and Keith in the Ozarks. And let's see the halls in Auburn, Kentucky. Darryl and Lisa Moundridge, Kansas. Thanks for being here. Jack and Teresa in wet Houston. You know, we've had so much rain that in New Mexico we actually have green grass. You all know about green grass in Houston, but we don't till this year. Edith in Missouri. Good to see you. Ready for some right divided Romans, she said. I appreciate that. Oh, raining in Missouri, too, but not in Kentucky. Leesburg, Georgia. Good to see you this evening. Jerry. Thank you. Scott in the hill country of Texas. Good see you. We got Chuck in Oklahoma. Thanks for being here. Lynn London. Good to see you. Jeff in Trinidad, Colorado. Welcome. Alex in London. Oh, your brother's here, too. Good see you. Roger Fresno, California. And Carol, good to see you. Shirley and Ridgecrest, California. I don't know if that related to anything else, but it's probably true. Hello from Ridgecrest, California. We're run by communists. Is that a plea for help? I don't know where you go. Herb and Sherry, Lafayette, Louisiana. Herb had a biopsy done they were kind of worried about with his cancer, but it came back cancer free. That is exciting. We praise the Lord for that and rejoice with you. Mike in Smithville, Missouri. Thank you, Eric. And our friend in Ohio. Good to see you. Linda in Lexington, Kentucky. Phil and Dreama, also in Lexington, Kentucky. I don't know how you lexington people always say hi about the same time. Nicholas in Bolingbrook, Illinois. Always delight to see you and thank you very much. What's up with Kentucky? Why does New Mexico have more grass than Kentucky? Something's up there. The fires are in the east. It's smoking. The eastern US. Swamp out. Oh, yeah. Keep them going. If that smoke is going to get the swamp cleaned out. Burn, baby, burn. Sorry about those of you who are enduring smoke and those of you who are enduring fires. That's something we have in the west. I don't know how it got swapped this year. Probably El Nino or La Nina. Or maybe it's just fires. Thanks very much for being here. Let's see, Sunday we are going to be talking at our 945 hours. That's the virtual tour. We're going to do a little in Getty, which is the oasis in the wilderness. Then we're going to make our way up to Jerusalem, make our first steps into Jerusalem on our virtual tour. And then at 1045, we continue the Unlearn It series. And we're going to talk about the so called three tenses of salvation that is justification. Sanctification glorification. Everybody knows that, right? Well, we're going to see if that can be supported biblically or if it's just something we've said so long that it became the big lie, little so called truth. Thanks for being here. Let me lead us in a word of prayer tonight. Heavenly Father most grateful for the gathering around this great big electronic table. And we are blessed tonight to be here and for those who have joined us from around the world tonight and those who will join over the next few hours, days, weeks, months even on the archives on this. Pray that this helps us to get an understanding of this passage and how it doesn't mean what is often taught to mean, and it certainly has to. Do with the sovereignty of God, but it's the sovereignty of God towards the nation of Israel. And it all fits into the context of what Paul is teaching. Help us with this and understanding this and knowing this. And we pray that as we go from this place that you'd keep us safe and healthy. And we rejoice with Herb and Sherry and the Good report that they've got others who are continuing to struggle, hurting spiritually, emotionally, financially. We pray your encouragement upon them tonight. Thank you for your blessings to help us continue this verse by verse, right dividing Bible ministry. And we pray it's to your glory in Jesus name, amen. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. I appreciate you being here. And tomorrow we'll be on for Ask the Theologian at.