You can just hit button. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to Thursday night Bible study. Glad you're here. I hope you enjoyed looking at the bird cam. That was the bird cam, right? Did you switch it? What? Where the camera is going to work or not? No, not yet, but that's okay. There's the magpie there. Hi, Magpie. I wrote a poem about the magpie recently. I'll share it with you someday. Not many hummingbirds here, but that is the bird cam. Happens to be in my backyard. We're working on having it 24/7. Nathan's working on it's. His experiment on broadcasting to have a live cam going. We thought about putting one here on the desk so that you could see me working all day, but I decided that wouldn't be all that exciting. So we put birds, bird cam. There we go. Well, glad you're here with us tonight as we study the Book of Romans. More important than bird feeders a little bit. And you've got an outline available for you. It is session number 24. That's available at the RWM connect site. You can get connected to the connect site by going to Randywhiteministries.org and submitting a little request for that. It's a little bit cumbersome. We're working on a better plan for getting all those to you. But there is the outline all there and ready to go. And we will move here in just a moment. I just remembered. Hey, Nathan. I just remembered Nathan walked out on me just when I needed him to set up my triple broadcast. Right there. He's going to do that for us. I had the wrong Biblify screen, but he's the Biblify creator. He can do it. I would have had it set up, but I always do it last minute, and I was watching birds, so now he's got to do it. Romans, chapter nine, verses six through 26. Well, six through 29 is the section that we'll be looking at, but we're just going to look at verses six through 16 tonight. Some interesting passages as they relate to the sovereignty of God and to election. We'll look at that here in just a moment. Let me give a little bit of announcement. I've got a book Madison is going to hand me, and the book is brand new that I will give to you, and I will give it to you. It's a 4.95 cent retail price, but you will get it free. Thank you, Madison. Here it is, right here. Okay. It's a booklet. That's what it is. And it is called by grace alone rethinking eternal rewards in Christian theology. Maybe you were part of the sermon last week on unlearn it, and I preached much of the material in this book. The book is an expanded version. It's just a little four x six booklet that we have put together, but it's 34 pages of argumentation against the Five Crown reward theory. We're going to put that to rest. By the way, this Sunday at 10:45 a.m., I will be a related topic, and that is the judgment seat of Christ. And we'll look at the bema seat and all of that. It certainly relates to the Five Crowns, but by grace alone. Little booklet. It will be on our website if you'd like to order 10,000 of them or something like that. But for any donation this month, anybody who gives a donation, we're just going to send it out free to you. And I know so many of you do that. And if you don't give a donation, just write me an email and say, I can't donate right now, but can I have the book? And I'll say, yes, you can have the book. By grace alone. Looking forward to getting that out. And now I think we're all hooked up right here and ready to go in Bible study tonight. And our session, 24 of Romans. And we're going to use, of course, the King James right here tonight as we look in that. And we might get into a little Greek here in the middle, the Greek interlinear. We might get into a little, well, Nathan set up for me Darby. Maybe we'll get into a little Darby. Did I push something wrong? Something happened? We're going to work on that. Yeah, sorry about that. How about I move right over here? That one works. I'm not sure what happened to the other one, but Nathan's working on that even as we speak to get that camera right there working. So we are going to be again, sorry for those technical difficulties. We're going to get started right here in the Book of Romans, chapter nine. Remember, 910 and eleven. Definitely. He's talking about Israel. And we think in our discussion, we think that it came about earlier than that, even in chapter eight. But we're in chapter nine now, so that doesn't matter. Here we go. Chapter 910 and eleven are about Israel, and it's about God's work fulfilled through Israel, as you see in the Bible. Graphically, excuse me, Romans graphically presented, page 38 and 39. Chapter nine and ten are the subject of Paul's prayer for Israel, god's plan for Israel in the dispensational change. Now that's important to recognize that Paul is explaining what happens to Israel in this dispensational change. He has introduced the dispensational change to Jews. And now the Jews are saying, what about us? And he's explaining what about us as a people, that is, the Jewish people, what is happening to them? And so we began last week in verses one through five, and he expressed his heart, his prayer, that all of Israel would come to a salvation and come to the things that belong to them. In chapter nine, verse four, that magnificent verse that helps as a hermeneutical principle. If you need to know about the promises, if you need to know about the adoption, if you need to know about the glory. If you need to know about the service, the liturgy given to God, we've got the key right there in Romans chapter nine, verse four. Those things belong to Israel. Now, in addition to that, there is the key that things that belong to Israel do not belong to us. They are not part of the dispensation of the grace of God. Now, just think what a different Christian world we would live in. And by that I mean what different Christianity we would have if it was well known across the board, just about any church you went into knew that the things of Romans chapter, chapter nine, verse four. Let me just back up a verse there and get to verse four. Romans, chapter nine, verse four. The things that are the Israelites, the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises, if across the board you could go to a church, as I often say, throw a dart on the map back there and whatever town it is, go into the Evangelical church there. What if they all use this as a hermeneutical principle? They knew that belongs to Israel, and in addition to that, they knew that Israel is not the church and therefore the things that belong to Israel do not belong to the church unless you can find it in some other Pauline passage. What a huge difference that would make in Christianity knowing those two things now. And wouldn't you agree those are two things that could be taught in 10 minutes. You could share that truth in 10 minutes. There it is. And yet there is so much, excuse me, so much evangelical garbage that is given that for some of us it takes ten years to figure that out and to learn through and to come to all that. So that's where we were last week. Now we are, excuse me, going to come into verse five tonight. Romans, chapter nine, verse five. Actually, we looked at five, is a continuation of verse four. Whose are the fathers of whom in the flesh Christ came, whose overall God blessed forevermore? We come into verse six now and here is where he really begins to address this issue. But wait a minute. All Israel is not saved. Paul's desire is that they would be saved. But they rejected the King, they rejected their kingdom, they rejected their Messiah. So what's up with that? Has the word of God become void? Is it all canceled out? Did God not get what he wanted? And so he's gone to plan B. There's some very natural questions that would come about. And so Paul comes to answer those questions in Romans chapter nine, beginning in verse six and going down really all the way through 29, we're only going to make it through verse 16 tonight. And he says not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. Just immediately he says, let me address an objection that someone might have. You mean God has now moved over here to the Gentiles. He's now doing this thing that is outside of the covenants and commonwealth of Israel. He's now doing this thing that doesn't need the things of verses four and five. It doesn't need the covenants, it doesn't need the promises, it doesn't need the service, it doesn't need the glory, it doesn't need the adoption. So all of that the very heart of the scripture. God's now doing something else. I guess the word of God is of none effect. You can imagine how you could go there, and a skeptic certainly would go there. And so Paul addresses this, by the way a skeptic would go there because that's a good place to go if you're asking questions. If all that's Israel and God's doing something else now, I guess the word of God was of none effect. The word of God to Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, to David and to Israel all the promises. So he immediately comes in, not as though the word of God has taken none effect, and then he begins to build his case. And here is His, I would say his premise right here. For they are not all Israel which are of Israel. And he wants to say God can, and I might add, will God can perform his promises or produce upon his promises, come through on his promises to Israel without having to do that for every Israelite. I think that this little part that I've highlighted here, they're not all Israel which are of Israel. I think that's something that they would have agreed with. He's going to defend his argument here. But I think that had you ask the Roman excuse me, the Jewish audience in that day, hey, is every child of Abraham going to receive the promises of Abraham? I think they'd say no. First of all, there was the obedience factor that was involved in carrying out the law and the things that were there. And so they say, well, no, there's some criteria to it. There are some things that have to come to it. By the way, Stephen's great sermon really has to do with this very thing that Stephen says as he goes through. In Acts chapter seven, he says, God gave Abraham promises, and yet Abraham never had any of it, and yet we revere Abraham, right? God gave Moses promises, and yet Moses didn't get to go into that land one bid, and yet we revere Moses, right? God gave David promises, and yet those promises weren't fulfilled, and yet we revere David. And it's this idea that, hey, not all of Israel is going to receive every single one of the promises. They would have agreed with that. So they're not all Israel which are of Israel. This is something that, if you want an example from the Scriptures, from the Old Testament, Hebrew scriptures, you could go to numbers? Is it chapter 16 or chapter 19, I believe, and numbers, chapter 16. Remember Korra? Korra was a card carrying descendant of Abraham, of the child of promise, Isaac even, and Jacob, he came through that line, and yet Cora was swallowed up by the earth and didn't get anything. Or that whole rebellious generation of the 40 years in the wilderness. They all were descendants of Abraham. But did God give them anything? No. Even Abraham. Again, I think in Hebrews you could argue, or in Steven's sermon you could argue how much did, how much of the the covenant promises did Abraham get? He certainly got a son, no doubt about it. But how much of the land did he get? A good summary of the scripture is not a square inch. He didn't get any of it. This is in the sovereign plan of God. He can deliver his promises to the nation of Israel without giving them to every single Israelite. And so when these Israelites, who no doubt, I think, from the prophecies and other things that we see from the first century they expected, this is the generation in which God is going to send His Messiah and which he's going to deliver upon his promises. Finally, the time has come. The fourth empire, that fourth beast, that vicious beast of Daniel, is now the timing has come that it's going to be wiped out and no more. We're going to have it. And then Paul says, hey, guess what? God's not going to deliver. He's not going to do that right now. Rather, here's this other thing outside of the covenants and commonwealth of Israel that God is doing, neither Jew nor Gentile, but God is bringing these people into a new plan, a new dispensation, a new day that he has. And so, hey, wait, has God's word come of none effect? No. He says, you know, that not all Israel are of Israel. They are not all Israel which are of Israel. God can be faithful to his promises without giving to every single Israelite. We think also of Jesus. John, chapter eight, verses, verse 39. He talks, we won't go there, but he talks about those who very definitely descended from the lineage of Abraham, and yet they weren't part of the Abrahamic promise. They weren't going to get it. So he comes with this idea here. I think that's his premise. They're not all Israel which are of Israel. Now, I am interpreting this, and as you know, what we do right here is question the assumptions. And you can take and begin to question this assumption. But my assumption is he is saying, I'll paraphrase this, he is saying first century Israel is not the Israel that's going to get the promise. That's a different Israel, not in its genealogical makeup, same thing as the Israel that's going to get it. But it's different in terms of time and space. Hey, in a different time, far away from now that Israel, Israel, the future is going to get it. And that's what he's going to discuss in chapters 910 and eleven. Now we continue on. He says, okay, so they're not all Israel. Neither because they are the seed of Abraham. Are they all children. But in Isaac shall thy seed be called. Now he's giving his, I guess you would say, the biblical evidence that not all Israel are Israel. That's his premise. And here's the biblical evidence. And he quotes from scripture right here when he says in see if I can get the right spot there, when he says, in Isaac shall thy seed be called. Not all Israel is Israel, because remember, Ishmael, he was a child of Abraham, but that's not who we're talking about. Ishmael was not the child of promise. And he quotes here from what have we got? Genesis 1719 through 21 or 20 112, in Isaac shall thy seed be called. This is what the Lord says in Isaac, not in anybody else. Isaac is the child of promise. So neither because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children. It's very interesting that Paul here uses a very physical word, seed. The word is sperma, actually. And so neither because they are of the seed of Abraham, they are physically, definitely, absolutely of the seed of Abraham. They're not adopted, they came from the seed of Abraham. But that does not make them children. What do you mean Ishmael wasn't a child? Ishmael wasn't a child of Abraham? Yeah, you absolutely was a child of Abraham. So he uses this very physical word, but he's speaking about this more spiritual aspect that Isaac. In Isaac shall thy seed be called. Here is the line of descendency that God is talking about. Now you can see that he is laying the groundwork for God's sovereign choice of election of Israel. And let's call the Israel that is going to receive his promises, let's call that the remnant. Okay, so it's his sovereign election of the remnant of Israel. They are going to get it at the time and the place that God has determined, and that's not every Jew, anywhere, anytime, God has promised to do that. For there is this sovereign time and place that God has selected and it was not in Ishmael, it was in Isaac, it's not in everybody is what he's trying to point out. And so he comes in verse eight and he says that is they which are the children of the flesh. These are not the children of God, but the children of promise are counted for the seed. Again, he is just reiterating what he has to say here. However, the problem is that many theologians begin by verse eight, if they didn't already do it in verses six and seven, by verse eight, they come to proof text. And they begin to proof text. Here one of two ways their whole goal in life is to get us into the Commonwealth and Covenants of Israel. They want that to be ours. I'm going to exaggerate a little bit. If I could reach my snarky bell, I would just go ahead and ring it. But they are going to say, what do you mean? The adoption belongs to them. The promises belong to them. The law belongs to them. The covenant belongs to them. The glory belongs to them. How dare they? They're Jews. We're the Bride of Christ. This is ours. Now say no. It says it's theirs. Oh, no, they're not the children. The children of the flesh. They're not the children of God. That would be me. I'd like to introduce myself to you. I'm a child of God. I'm the body of Christ. I'm the bride of Christ. I am the glory of God right here in your presence. Kind of makes you want to throw up, doesn't it? That kind of replacement theology. There's subtle ways of doing it and there's not so subtle ways of doing it, but that is found almost exclusively in American Christianity today, western Christianity today. And it goes back a long way back into Augustine's days, and it's been a long time with us, take a long time to unlearn because the theologians come into this verse and say, ah, here's where we fit in. They Israel, which are the children of the flesh. These aren't the children of God, I am. These aren't the children of God, but the children of promise are counted for the seed. Me, the child of promise. US the bride of Christ, the body of Christ, the child of promise. That's us. That is such a fake reading of the text. First of all, if you believe Paul, we the body of Christ weren't even a glimmer in anybody's eye through the Old Testament. We're unsearchable there. How in the world could we be counted for the children of promise? Not at all. We're not there, simply put. So he's coming again. His argument is the flow of Romans. God has decided to do something new. It's neither Jew nor Gentile. Wait a minute, then. Is God's word void? No, it's not. Not void. God didn't promise the promise to be given to every single Israelite, did he? No, I guess he didn't. We remember ishmael and Isaac. He chose Isaac. Right? Okay. Not every child of Abraham was the child of promise, right? Right. That's what he says, and that's all he says. So when you hear the evangelical preacher, the Protestant preacher, the Reformed preacher, take Romans, chapter nine, verse eight, and make it to say israel is not Israel, the Church is Israel. They really are perverting the words. There's no way you can get that out of either the grammar nor the context. You can only get it by making it up. But the problem is, it's been made up so many times that there's lots of footnotes to people who made it up. And as long as you quote something with a footnote, then it's true, right? Maybe we should call it the footnote fallacy. If it's got a footnote, then it's true. Well, I am one who I often call it the third grade test. How would a third grader interpret this? And granted, this might be a little bit above a third grade level, but someone who doesn't know all that garbage and just read this, they would say, not every one of Israel is going to get Israel's promises. And if you said, what's that say about the church? They'd say, nothing. It's not there. You know, some of you know I've been playing with and I've actually become a don't don't be shocked if you if this is the first time you've heard it. Kind of a friend of artificial intelligence. What's that apology AI always gives when it can't do something? It says I'm a language model, or something like that. Sorry I couldn't help you. Do you remember Nathan? Anyway, it says, I just go by language. I can't help you with that. I go by language. I kind of like that. I like that it goes by language. What do words mean? What do those words say in their context? All that kind of stuff. Here it is. And language certainly has some nuance to it, no doubt about it. But here what the words say. Not all Israel is going to get it. Not all Israel is Israel. Let me give you an example. Ishmael Isaac. Did both of them get the promise? No, it was one of them that was the child of promise. So not all they which are the children of the flesh. Let's put in Abraham here. We can go back to the Greek word sperma, if you want. They which are the children of Abraham, these aren't the children of God, but the children of promise are the children of God in the context. How do we read ourselves into there? There is a start to say a Greek word. It's based upon Greek, but there is an English word for that, for reading ourselves in here. It's called isajesis. And we don't do Isajesis, we do exegesis. So again, so far, what does the text say? It says not all Israel is Israel and God can still be true to his promises. And that is what we've got through that right there. So let's go before let me add one more thing. The children of the promise are counted for the seed. That is typically the place where the Calvinists, the Evangelicals, the Protestants, the Catholics, this is where we get read into it. Isajesis takes place right here. The children of promise are counted for the seed. There are two ways of doing it. One is there is the outright replacement theology. God is done with Israel, now we are the children. He's done with that seed. He's gone to this seed. That's just outright replacement theology, which even as much garbage as there is in evangelicalism. Outright bold faced replacement theologies is not that popular. People will call it out for replacement theology. So there's subtle replacement theology and the subtle way to read us in right here is not to say we were replaced, but we have now joined in with them. And typically right here they would say, when we get to chapter eleven, we're going to be talking about being grafted in. So we weren't part, but we were adopted into the family. Even though the adoption belongs to Israel, but nonetheless that meant us. We were adopted into the family. And now the covenants, the law, the service, the glory, the adoption, it's now ours because we've been brought in. Because it says right here, not all the children of Abraham are the children of Abraham, but it's the children of promise. That's me and you, boys and girls, here we are. It's still replacement theology. It's just nicer. Nicer replacement theology. It's kind of like having a nicer murderer. Nobody wants a mean murderer. Have a nice one. Okay, going on to verse nine. Comments like that get me kicked off YouTube. This is the word of promise. At this time will I come and Sarah shall have a son. Same theme. Not all Israel is Israel. You got ishmael you got Isaac. That's my illustration. He says he could have chosen Korra and Moses. He could have chosen the generation of Joshua versus the generation of Moses. Number of different illustrations. In a moment he's going to choose Jacob and Esau as the illustration. So lots of illustrations that he could use to say, hey, God picked this instead of picking that. There it is. So in. This ishmael Isaac. Isaac is the child of promise, remember, and not both children are the children of promise. Only Isaac is the children of promise. What he says in verse eight and he comes along to support that a little bit in verse nine when he says this is the word of promise. And then he quotes here in verse nine and this quote in verse nine is from Genesis chapter 18, verse ten, at this time will I come and Sarah will have a son. God's word. I left my drink out on the table. Madison, would you go get it? Excuse me? No, I didn't. It's right there. Thank you. Here I've been coughing the whole time thinking my drink sitting on the table out there and I can't just go get it. I would leave you all, but I could have let you see the birds, couldn't I have I don't know how to do the get you to the birds. Sorry. It's probably dark. So he quotes Genesis 18. Genesis 21. They both say the same thing. So I will come, sarah will have a son. Now he's pointing out there is a sovereignty of God in this election. God could have said, I'm going to bring another woman into your life down from Egypt, and through her I'm going to bring forth a great nation. She will be the child of promise. Sarah, she's barren, she's old. I've decided to do it this way. God could have done that. And I think, though it would have been weird, none of us would complain because we look at that and say, well, the whole thing's kind of weird anyway. I mean, you got hagar in the story, whether she's the chosen one or not the chosen one. So God could have done it, but he did this. Now, again, he is giving an argument that I think every Jew would have agreed with. And that is great argumentation, by the way, if you're trying to get someone to adopt an idea, show them that the entire foundation of the idea is things, they agree with, this stone, that stone the cornerstone, you agree with all of it. The only natural conclusion then is they're not all Israel, which are of Israel. That's the point he's trying to give. So here again, I think they say, well, amen or duh, yeah, of course, this is what happens. And then as we continue on, not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our Father Isaac. Now, not only this, he goes on to a second illustration. Guess what he's illustrating? That not all Israel is Israel, that God has made a sovereign choice to say the promise goes through this line here, and God can do that sovereignly. And every Jew is going to say, yeah, Amen, that's exactly true, we don't disagree with you at all. So then they're going to come around and say, yeah, I guess then in his sovereignty, God can choose to allow Israel to diminish for a time, as he's going to say in chapters ten and eleven, he can allow Israel to diminish. He can bring that back at a later time and choose to fulfill his promises to that Israel. Well, if he could do it, not through Ishmael, but through Isaac, not through Esau, but through Jacob, then how can we say, oh, but it's got to be to this generation of Israel, not to that generation of Israel. God is sovereign and he can do this. And that's his whole point. And isn't it sad that through this whole point to Israel, so many in Reform theology have done this. Selfish isgesis reading ourselves into it from the beginning, as if they can't read anything but Calvin and get this in here. So not only this, Rebecca, verses 1011 and twelve, by the way, really have to go together because it's one sentence, and to get the entire thought, you got to put it together. So Rebecca, of course, this is Isaac's wife. It's kind of a minor point or a minor argument. You know that from the beginning I have argued that the book of Romans is written to Jews, and I've probably convinced you after 24. Sessions, that book of Romans is written to Jews, but at the beginning are you sure about that book of Romans written to Jews? What are you talking about? Or in some other setting where they haven't gone through 24 sessions. I don't know about that. I thought it was written to Romans. Romans. They're not Jews. Here's yet another this one's subtle and it would be one of the weaker arguments, but yet another argument that says his audience is Jewish, because he's able to come in and just give this argument without really any background to it. Not only this. When Rebecca had conceived by one, even our Father Isaac, if you're from a pagan background, I don't know that you know that much about Rebecca and Isaac. Maybe Abraham you've heard of, but Rebecca, I even think we were talking I think it was last night, wasn't it, on our John the Baptist study? And I said, you could go just about anywhere in the world and say, who said I'm not worthy to stoop down and untie your shoes? And they would know it was John the Baptist. John the Baptist is a very well known figure, even among those who have rejected Christianity and rejected the scripture. But I don't think Rebecca is so well known. Maybe Isaac a little more, but I think if you went out on the street and said, you remember Abraham, don't you? Yeah. Father Abraham. Remember him? You remember his son. Eventually they'd probably get to Isaac. Need a little help? You remember who Isaac's wife was? Oh, yeah, rehab there. I think they would begin to struggle and he just comes and presents Rebecca. Everybody knows Rebecca. Well, I think the truth is, jewish people who are familiar with the Torah know Rebecca. They don't need any background. He doesn't give them any background because his audience doesn't need it. So not only this, but when Rebecca had also conceived by one, even our Father Isaac, not the end of a sentence. And he goes into a parenthetical here, I'm going to skip the parenthetical in verse eleven and jump down to verse twelve. It was said unto her, the elder shall serve the younger. Okay, did you put that together? I think you did. So when Rebecca had conceived by one, even our father Isaac, it was said unto her, the elder shall serve the younger. Now, that is his main point, his evidence to support his main point, really, I should say his main point is not all Israel is Israel. Not all the children of Israel are Israel. He uses Abraham and he uses Isaac and ishmael but then he might say, oh, yeah, but that was the beginning. I mean, once we got this going through Isaac, then all of Israel is Israel. He says, oh, wait a minute. Do you remember Rebecca when she had twins within her? God said at that point, the elder shall serve the younger. Now, at this point, he doesn't even give names. But they're Jews, they know this story. They're nodding, they're saying yes, they're going to go along with it. So the elder shall serve the younger. That's his point to support. Not all of the children of Abraham are going to get the Abrahamic promise. Ishmael didn't. Yeah, but let's get that generation, okay, the next generation esau didn't. He's proven a point and I think he's taking away the arguments so that it's now becoming pretty difficult for them to say, oh yeah, God has to deliver to me. No, it's not the history of God. So this is his argument supporting his premise for this argument 1011 and twelve he gives some theological insight. In verse eleven. This is the parenthetical. Let's back up to verse eleven. He gives this parenthetical, he says for the children this is the older and the younger, the twins, Jacob and Esau. The children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand not of works, but of him that calleth. Okay, did Jacob earn or deserve to be the inheritor of the promise? No, he wasn't even born, didn't do anything. He hadn't done good, he hadn't done evil. Later on by the way, he'd do both. He hadn't done good and done evil. Esau, I'm sure Esau later on he's going to do both some good and some evil. God's selection of them was not based upon whether or not they had done good or evil. Now you know that I'm not a Calvinist. You also probably have figured out at this point that I don't think this is about Calvinism, about individual election in our day. I think to get that you just completely have to say let's ignore the context here and write ourselves into it. And I am not predisposed to do that. I just want to take what the text says. So here's the language and it's arguing that God's going to be true to Israel but it doesn't have to be true to this Israel right here today. Let me prove it to you. And he begins to prove it. And yet again I suspect that 60% to 70% probably take this passage in Romans chapter nine to be some sort of election promise for the church today, for the people who are individually saved. With that then of course, you know, there's this debate upon what basis did God choose some who are these are the, the ones who are more uncomfortable with Calvinism and reform theology but they don't know enough about right division to know how to get themselves out of here. So they have to kind of accept it along the way. They will say, well God knew in advance who was going to accept him and who wasn't going to accept him. And upon that, upon the foreknowledge of God, God chose me. Knowing what a fine young man I would be foreknowledge this kind of if you're trying to use Romans nine to support Calvinism, which I'm not, but if you're using Romans nine to support reform, soteriology then just go all the way. Because this one says it's not based upon some foreknowledge of their good or evil. God did this while they were in the womb. That's the point of verses ten and twelve. And verse eleven just sort of fleshes out the idea of this, is that according to the purpose that election might stand, that is just to show that God can do whatever God wants to do in his sovereignty. God says Jacob, not Esau, not based upon any kind of works and not of works. And remember that we're in the age of grace. But the Abrahamic promise certainly was a gracious promise. It was based upon grace. Abraham believed it was credited on him as righteousness. It was given, it was a gift for him. Now it's a gift for Jacob. It's yours, Jacob. And that was not based upon works. It was just based upon God decided to do it. He could have called the Egyptians, he could have called the Babylonians, he could have called the Chinese to be his people. He didn't. He chose Israel through Abraham, through Isaac, then through Jacob to be the ones not all Israel is Israel. These are Israel, these are the children of promise, the children of God. So he goes on in verse twelve then, and finishes as we've already said, he said unto her, the elder shall serve the younger. This is God's choice, god's sovereign choice. Because I said so, right? That's what it was, because I said so. The older shall serve the younger. And then we have this disturbing verses every now and then. Are there these verses you say, I wish, I wish the Bible hadn't said that. If you can't say something nice, don't say something at all. Nothing at all. Say nothing. How did Thumper say it? You know what I mean. So we come in here to verse 13 as it is written. Obviously we've got a quote of Scripture here. The quote comes from Malachi, chapter one, verses three and four. You can go back to it if you want, but it quotes it just like this in Malachi, chapter one. I believe it's verse three. And there is the quote jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. Now, before we get into this, let me say that everyone in the Jewish audience would have agreed with that, maybe even with a little bit of pride, because they would have been children of Jacob. Yes, that's right. Amen Preacher. That's what it says. And yet they probably would have been a little quiet on their amens here because they know, wait a minute, he's saying not all Israel is Israel. Only those who God has sovereignly elect to be Israel are actually Israel. And he's saying God's not given us the promises. So even though we agree we don't want to say Amen. We want to be careful. We see where this train is going by now. So they see this. They understand this in Malachi. And this is what disturbs us right here. Esau. Have I hated God? You're not supposed to say that. God so love the world. How in the world can you say Esau? I hated. Now, many have tried to soften the word and I would say most commentaries, if you look into them, those commentaries try to soften the word. They will say in the Greek, this word actually means rejected, not hated. Just in case you feel better having been rejected instead of hated. I don't hate you, I just reject you. But they try to soften the word. The commentaries try to soften the word. The problem is the word is clear. I would say it is clear in Hebrew. And Malachi, if you do the word search from Malachi, from Strongs and you look it up all the times that word hated is used, don't be surprised to find out it means hated. You do the word search here in Greek. What does that Greek word mean? Surely it's translated in other places like I'm thoroughly disappointed in you every I think it's every time. Maybe maybe one time in the King James when the Greek word is used, and it's used like 40 times, one time it's not hated and it's there, it's despised. Okay, that doesn't soften it at all, does it? So you look at the Hebrew and it means hated. You look at the Greek and it means hated. But I don't want it to say God hated Esau. But guess what it says? God hated esau. Jacob. I loved esau. I hated. There it is. I think that it is such a clear word, hated that even the modern translations, which I think probably had to swallow hard here to get this one down, the modern translations that seem predisposed to not say hated, guess what they say hated. The word is so clear in Hebrew and in Greek that any kind of reputable translation at all I think around the committee table they said, we don't want to do it, but we got to go with hated. That is what it says. So the new King James, the new American Standard, the ESV, even the NIV says hated because that's what the word means. It means hated. And so they've gone with it. Not rejected or loved less. That's what the commentaries are going to say. You know, I I love the Esau less than I love Jacob and therefore I have chosen Jacob. But it's not that. Now, why did God hate Esau? Remember, this was before he was born. He hadn't done anything. It was all based upon election and upon promise. Why did he hate Esau? Guess what? I don't know. Sometimes I'd like to send him a memo. Dear God, don't you know you're not supposed to do that? I don't know why he hated Esau. The answer is not given there. Maybe we could speculate about this or that or whatever it is, but I think we would have a hard time knowing why God hated Esau both in Genesis. Excuse me. Well, Genesis doesn't use the word hated, but it certainly uses the selection there. And Malachi, where it says hated, here, where it says hated never gives any indication why he hated. But in none of those passages, is that the issue? The issue is always god in his sovereignty has decided to give the promise to Jacob. And Paul comes along to say that is evidence that not all Israel is Israel. Not all Israel is going to receive the promises. God doesn't owe it to our generation to deliver it to us. Exhibit A ishmael exhibit B Esau. And so he goes through this, then he comes in verse 14. What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. 1415 we probably should put together, but let's just talk about this right here. Is there unrighteousness with God? This is, I think, the reason why the commentaries want to drop the word hated. That means hated, but say less loved because that sounds unrighteous and it must have sounded unrighteous to them too. As a matter of fact, I think this argument in verse 14 is testimony that hated means hated. That the Apostle Paul, even here he comes in, says, I know you all are kind of uncomfortable that it says hated. Is there unrighteousness with God? I think the people would say, no, there's no unrighteousness with God. Now, they might say, I can't figure out I can't put that one together. I don't understand that one. I don't know why that one is, but they would agree with Him. Is there unrighteousness with God? They would be the ones to shout out, God forbid. He's carrying out this little conversation with them. And he goes on then in verse verse 15 for he saith to Moses, and here's another quote I will have mercy upon whom I will have mercy and I will have compassion upon whom I will have compassion. Here it is, just like that. I'm going to do that. That's a quote from Exodus 30 319 and it's speaking of the Pharaoh, which we'll speak of next week. But he comes in and just says, hey, I'm in charge here. And that's the point of God being in charge. God's sovereignty is god can initiate an age of grace if he wants to and not deliver to Israel right now if he wants to, right? And sadly, again, all the Christian world, so much of the Christian world takes this passage and makes it some kind of grotesque selection of who's going to be saved and who's going to be damned when that's not what it's about at all. The words show that that's not what it's about. So he comes he gives this quote again, it's Exodus 30 319. And the emphasis here is on the sovereignty of God, I can have mercy upon whoever I want to have mercy, I can have compassion on whom I will have compassion. I am God. And the people are agreeing with this and so they're going to in the end going to have to come through and either just say, I reject your argument, Paul, because I feel like rejecting it, or they're going to have to accept it. The logic is just too strong. That is absolutely where the logic leads. Now, let me go ahead and say a point that logic does not always win the argument because there are times when people sometimes say, no, I don't want to accept the logic, I don't want to accept that argument, I'm not interested in that. I follow the science even if the science says something different. So there is that rejection that is given there. So here again, it's the sovereignty of God deciding to whom he is going to deliver the promises. So then we come to verse 16 where we close tonight. So then it is not of Him that willeth, nor of Him that runth, but God that showeth mercy. In this conclusion on this section, he has this. So then, and in this conclusion on this section, though, he's going to pick up with the same theme and add to it in verse 17, which we'll look at next week, because I knew I couldn't make 17 through 29 and that's the next big junk. But in this conclusion to this particular section, which is part A of his argument, he, he comes and he reminds us, hey, it's not a person's will or a person's work. We'll take run to mean work. It's not Him that willeth, nor him that runeth, but God that showeth mercy. Again, it's this argument that is he's engaging in the sovereignty of God, trying to get the people to recognize, yeah, this is up to God and God can certainly carry this out. Now, I think that we should notice here he comes and uses the present tense all of a sudden, he's been talking about the past. Now then, it is not Him that willeth, nor him that runeth, but God that showeth mercy. Now, I know that the word, the verb is inserted there by the translators and yet it has to be because will and run is the present active indicative. It is talking about the present. And he hasn't been talking about the present, he's been talking about the past. Now he comes and says, okay, right now, today, it's not Him that wills or him that runs, it's God who shows mercy. Now there are some who would say, okay, Paul's been having a theological argument of the past, but now he's talking in the future. And therefore we can bring this and have an argument about our election based upon this because now he's come into the future. However, I think that such an argument to make this, because this brings it to the future and it absolutely does bring it to the future, to the present, I should say, brings it to the present in Paul's day, in Romans, being in the present doesn't mean we can say this is about us. See there? It's in the present, it's about us. It's not Him who wills, nor Him who runs, but God who shows mercy. And he's shown mercy to me, one of his elect. He's not shown mercy to you, one of the damned for his glory. That's a huge leap, not even found in the context of Romans whatsoever, that is, taking the westminster catechism and using it to shine light on the Bible, that's the wrong way. Thy word shall be a light unto My path, not the westminster catechism. So again, the problem is you come in with all of this idea that's packed into your mind already, and you say, oh, okay, the bald headed preacher has been saying, no, that's about Israel, Israel, Israel. But now I got them right there. It says, it is today in the present, active indicative. It's not Him that wills, it's not Him who works, it's God who shows mercy. Therefore Calvinism is true. Such a huge leap, but what if you just stuck to the Scripture and you went back to the beginning of Romans and Paul begins to say, hey, there's this gospel that's been given, it's the Gospel of God. I'm not ashamed of it. It is the gospel that you and I, Jews have been living under. But I need to tell you, I had a revelation from God, and this revelation from God is that he is now doing this new thing. And therefore now we conclude that a man is not justified by works, but is justified by faith. Now we conclude that Israel, with all of her advantages, god is doing something outside of Israel, he's doing something to mankind. He's allowing this, and he's going to fulfill his promises of the covenants. He's got to he's God, he's true to Himself, he's going to fulfill those, but he doesn't have to fulfill them today. Not all Israel is of Israel. He didn't fulfill them to Ishmael. He fulfilled him to Isaac. He didn't fulfill him to Esau. He fulfilled him to Jacob. He can have mercy upon whom he wants to have mercy. It's not Him who wills or Him who runs. It's God who shows mercy. And this is what God has decided to do. That, in a nutshell, is where we've been in the Book of Romans so far, took 24 sessions to say that, but that's what the Book of Romans is about. And so he's explaining now to Israel, okay, where are we? If God's not dealing with Israel specifically right now, where are we? He starts by saying, well, first of all, we're under the sovereignty of god. And God can do what he wants. Let's let him do what he wants, right? And then let's see how this unfolds. And he's going to continue to unfold that in this point. And it's not written yet, but he is going to get to the point of saying god is going to bring Israel out of its temporary blindness back into his will. That, ladies and gentlemen, concludes our Bible study tonight. But I would enjoy saying hi to you, giving some greetings. If you haven't said hello yet, why don't you do so and carry that out so I can say hi. And anybody who wants the new little book, you can have it by Grace Alone rethinking Eternal Rewards in Christian Theology. And it's a little four chapters. You can read it all. I mean, it's 34 pages in a four x six book. You can read it all quickly. It does have basically the material I covered last Sunday in the sermon, and yet it has some digging deeper sections as well. Some more information on that. So I'll send it. Anybody who's given a donation gets it. Anybody who writes me an email and says I want it, it's Randy@randywhiteministries.org. And you will get it through the month of June. Let me say hello. Jim Reeves in Piedmont, South Carolina, thanks for being the first in the room tonight. We got Dr. Mike Lorna Benner in income in Pennsylvania. Good to see you. And we've got Sholo, Arizona, coming tonight from Scenic Tunapal. Is that how you pronounce it? I'll go with tuna paw. It's probably wrong. T-O-N-O-P-A-H. Nevada. Thanks for being here. Go ahead, Nathan. I see he's about to click a button on me. Usually he does it right in the middle of when I'm reading, but at least today he paused a little bit. I remember one time years ago when I was a young man, I had just become the pastor of a church and I was called on to do the funeral of someone, and I went out and I was doing in those days, you read the obituary and somebody was from Lake Towacane. That's when I learned always read the obit first. Tuwakani has about 75 letters in it to get that out of there. Somebody tell me if I pronounced tuna paw correctly. Vulcan. I can pronounce that. And Neil, I can pronounce that. Glad you're here. From Vulcan. Alberta, Canada. Three easy ones right there. Cyprus, Texas. Bill, good to see you. Thank you. Maryland. And Roger, thanks for being here. Wabashaw, Minnesota. I learned how to pronounce that. It took me a few years, but I got that a few years back. Darryl and Lisa Moundridge, Kansas. Good to see you. Nancy and Ed and Forrest, the right dividing dog who was baptized this evening in a deep sink. Good. Well, I hope he repented first and confessed his sins. Auburn, Kentucky. Glad to see the whole family here, chuck out in western rainy western Oklahoma. Yeah, it was raining here, too, earlier today. Thank you. And Edith, glad to see you in west plains, Missouri. Thank you. Jack and Teresa, good to see you tonight, even if you are multitasking. From Houston welcome Nicholas in Bolingbrook, Illinois. Thanks for being here. Hey, Nathan, I've noticed the last couple of weeks not everything is turning orange. Like Nicholas right there, bowling brook. He made this, Abercadet. Well, how did that happen? I just tell him and now it's orange. Did you see that, that it was not orange. I have witnesses here from Poco, West Virginia in our live studio audience. He made this thing like the first time you chat, it comes up in orange so that I don't have to read everything. But it hasn't been orange and now it's orange. Thanks for fixing that, Nathan. I appreciate that. Mike, good to see you. Smithville, Missouri. God bless you. Eric in Ohio, thanks for being here today. This morning I got my Eric Smith mixed up and asked the theologian. I had Eric in Minnesota whom I introduced as Eric from Ohio. But I eventually got it straight. Lisa, good to see you. Beautiful. Carbondale, Colorado, trying to get her mom, dad and forest to move there. That would be nice. Memphis, Tennessee. Good to see you. Hot. Memphis, Tennessee. Rodney and Denise. Thank you. Oh, Santa Fe, Texas. Did you all know there was two Santa Fe? Santa Fe, Texas. Good to see you. RIA, god bless you. Glad you are here with us tonight. I wonder if Santa Fe, Texas has the same full name as Santa Fe, New Mexico. Most people don't know that Santa Fe, New Mexico has a full name. I could almost get it for you, but let's see. What is the official name of Santa Fe, New Mexico? Here we go. I'll go to the what is this the wikipedia page? This is what you came for on this Thursday nights, didn't you? That is not the wikipedia page. I got to back up. There's the wikipedia page. Here we go. Your last moment of history for this evening. Santa Fe, which is the oldest capital in the United States in almost the youngest state. There's the old palace of the governors right there. Okay, here it is, the name. Where did it go? Where's the full name? Do you see it anywhere? Oh, here it is right there. The city's full name as founded remains la Villa real de la Santa Fe de San Francisco de assisi. We call it Santa Fe. That's a mouthful. It means the royal town of the holy faith of St. Francis of assisi. But Santa Fe, Texas is just the holy faith city of holy faith. Now, you know linda in Lexington, thanks for being here. And John, good to see you in west Virginia. You guys should meet sometime. Go meet John next time you're there. Your neighbor. Fresno, California. Carol roger. Good to see you. Both of you. Thanks for you joining us tonight. We've got Phil and Dreama also in Lexington. Good to see you. Thank you, Jerry. He says, it sounds like my kind of book. I don't know if he means free or if he means small or if he means well written and informative. Look, we just got a Woodpecker come to the Bird Cam. We're going to get this Bird Cam where anybody can watch it 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Turn your face to us around there. Okay, would you? Mr. Woodpecker there. He doesn't want to. And I got to get greetings, Herb and Sherry. Greetings to you from Lafayette, Louisiana. And had a little biopsy on Tuesday that went well. Now awaiting the results. We're praying for a good report, but glad that went well. Herb in Lafayette, Louisiana. Sherry there with him. Shirley and Ridgecrest, California. Thank you. We got our friend Gerard from the kingdom of the Netherlands. Welcome. And Alex coming from London. Working late tonight, aren't you? Or early, I guess we should say. Thank you for being here. Works nights sometimes, which works out well for us. And let's see. Having a hard time reading that Eon. I believe it says I'm not sure where Eon's from, but a little question here. Let's go ahead and read it. As we scripture the Scriptures, because in them we believe we find eternal life. Have we come to the realization that Jesus is indeed the savior of the whole world yet, or no, jesus is the only savior that there is in the world and he's offering a free gift to all of the world and that we rejoice. Thanks for being here. We've got let's see some conversation there. I can't stop and read all that. We'd be here all night. Linny. Alex's, brother. Good see you. Linny in London. Who says grace and peace? Everyone. We appreciate that. And Chuck. But I think this is a different Chuck. But maybe not, but glad you're here, Chuck, even if you're here twice. Thanks, everybody, for being here. I appreciate that. Oh, Gerard picked up that the city of Holy Faith of St. Francis of Assisi is a Catholic town indeed, you're right in its history, and you are basically right in its modern state as well. People who go somewhere are Catholic in Santa Fe. In all of northern New Mexico, however, Santa Fe is a very liberal town, one of the most liberal in the United States, which is worse than Catholic. Lisa, catholics don't kill babies and liberals do. So it would be a good start if they would come back to the so called Holy faith of St. Francis of Assisi. But instead, they worship the rocks and the stars and the sun and the moon and the aura and the energy and George soros with that, we'll close. Thanks for being here. And again, if you click the Donate button or. You already donate automatically, you'll get one of these. You don't have to do anything. But if for whatever reason you can't do that or you want me to hurry up with it, just send me an email. Randy@randywhiteministries.org, appreciate that. Thanks, each one of you for being here tonight, and God bless you for that. Rich and Jody, thanks for being here as well in the live studio audience. Trent and Madison are here in the live studio audience. And Nathan is in the live studio audience, but he's not the audience. He's making all this stuff work, which we appreciate. Let's have a word of prayer. Heavenly father, thanks for this bible study as it does call us and encourage us to recognize that God doesn't have to just immediately carry out everything that he wants to carry out for every single Jew. He's got a plan and he's going to carry it out. But at this point now, he is doing something in the dispensation of the grace of God for which we are most grateful. I pray that so many more would come to recognize, rightly, dividing the word of truth and that that would be a blessing. And we pray this in Jesus name. Amen. Amen. Sharon and Russ, good to see I saw you come in late there. Thanks, Nathan. How do I make the bird cam big? I don't know how to do that. That's not really what I meant either. You mean those arrows right there that say, make me big? I'll leave you all with a bird cam again tonight, but it's getting kind of getting kind of late, so I don't know if you'll get many birds we'll see here. Thanks for being with us. There's the hummingbird feeder down there, but not many hummers tonight. And the bird the bird food, that's the bugs, nuts and fruit right there in our lovely backyard. On this Thursday evening, I'll play some music. We'll let it sing there for a little bit. Maybe a bird will come back. Magpie, anyone? Crow? Stellars. J, maybe. There we go. With a female western gross deck. The males are bright. Go ahead and have a look.