Romans Commentary Project, chapter 11

Chapter 11

1 I say then, has God rejected his people? May it not be! For I myself am an Israelite, from the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin

Rejected is aposato, which means “pushed aside.” Read in context of the previous argument of chapter 10. Paul’s point in asking this question, then affirming his own ethnic heritage, is to identify the terms of the “remnant.” So then, can any ethnic Jews be saved?

2 God has not rejected his people which he foreknew. Or do you not know in Elijah what the scripture says, that he pleaded to God on account of Israel?

Paul argues here to the precedent of God’s sparing a holy remnant when Israel as a whole was lost. Foreknew is proegno.

3 Lord, they have killed your prophets, they have destroyed your altars, and I alone am left and they seek my life

Quotation is from 1 Kings 19.

4 But what did the oracle say to him? I have kept to myself seven thousand men, which did not bow a knee to Baal

Oracle is chrematismos.

5 In this way then even in the present time there has become a remnant chosen by grace

Remnant is leimma, chosen eklogen. “In this way” is houtos, which is vitally important to how we understand v. 25. Here, as there, it functions as the conclusion of an argument by demonstrating manner, not time.

6 And if by grace, neither by works, since grace would no longer by grace

The definition of grace precludes the possibility of election by national privilege—works of Torah. Therefore the remnant is not defined in this way, but rather by charitos

7 What then, what Israel sought, this it did not obtain, and the chosen found it, but the rest were hardened

Chosen is again ekloge. As shown in 9:30-31, the unlikely according to birth have found that which ethnic Israel thought it would claim for itself. Note here that what is being “sought” must be covenant membership—dikaiosune; not a personal deliverance from the guilt of sin. Otherwise the remnant language makes no sense.

8 Even as it is written God gave to them a sluggish spirit, eyes not to see, and ears not to hear, until this very day

Echoing Deuteronomy, Isaiah, and of course, Jesus.

9 And David says Let their table be to them unto snares and unto a trap and unto a stumbling block and unto a retribution

Table is trapeza, which would of course have the implication of a ceremonially clean table from which Gentiles were excluded, for a Jew. Stumbling block is skandalon (cause for sin) again and antapodoma is retribution. (An unfavorable ruling in the law court that must be exacted.) The reference is from Ps. 69/35

10 Let their eyes be darkened not to see and their backs bent forever

Ethnic Israel, called to be a light, is gone dark. Ethnic Israel, which told its own story in terms of liberation and freedom, is by its own sin bent under the yoke of slavery again. But the point of this is not to show an absolute condemnation, but rather to define the terms of the remnant.

11 I say then, have they stumbled that they might fall? May it not be! But by their stumble salvation to the Gentiles is come unto their being made jealous

Here Paul makes his case for “some hope yet.” I think this passage is clarified further in the terms of his practical purpose in writing the letter. (Establishing Rome as a missionary base to Spain, as Antioch was to him for Asia Minor.) The following passage is not, as some commentators, a sudden extension of universal salvation back to the Jews after it was retracted in chs. 9-10, but rather a personal note of hope on a deeply painful subject despite the surprising and paradoxical way in which God has acted through the Messiah. Paul doesn’t change his mind in the next 13 verses…rather, upholding his argument throughout the book, he cautions the Roman church against the same mistake by which the Jews excluded themselves. Stumble is eptaisan. Jealous is parazelosai.

12 And if their stumble is riches of the world and their defeat riches of the gentiles, how much more their inclusion

How much more wonderful should it be that a remnant of Jews would be included in the covenant people! This must be told to the Roman church especially in light of the expulsion of the Jews under Claudius, and the retraction of the edict under the newly ascended Nero, which would have brought the Jewish Christians back into an uneasy fellowship with the Gentile Christians in Rome who apparently needed reminding that the gospel was “to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile.”

13 And I speak now to you, Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I myself am an apostle to the Gentiles, I glorify my ministry

Here Paul makes his direct plea to the Gentile party The second half of the sentence is a particularly convoluted bit of Greek. The rhetorical force of the men…de relationship with v. 15 is lost in English, but there should be a sense of “since v. 13B&14…then clearly v. 15.” In short, Paul, as the apostle to the Gentiles, somehow has a unique ministry to the exiled Jews as well by rousing their jealousy at Gentile inclusion.

14 in order to make my flesh (people) jealous and save some of them

Flesh is sarka, “Israel-according-to-the flesh.” Save is soso. Implication is that kai has a thereby or “thus” effect.

15 For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what would their acceptance be but life from the dead?

If by the rejection of the Messiah (and here you see a reference to everything about the aggregation of sin/trespass in the argument in ch. 7 referenced AND the idea of Jesus as the representative of Israel according to the flesh) is the means of reconciling the world into God’s family, how much more would the resurrection of Israel from their death in sin mean? The sense is, the re-inclusion of Israel must be very desirable.

16 And if the first-portion is holy, also the whole batch. And if the root is holy, also the branches.

First-portion is aparche again. The leavening yeast and the branch-nourishing root are O.T. images of Israel that are carried into the words and teachings of Jesus. It’s a side-note, but worth mentioning that this verse ought to carry into the discussion of the question “to what extent was Paul exposed to the written/oral traditions of Jesus?”

17 And if some of the branches are broken off, and you being a wild olive are grafted in upon them and made in fellowship of the rich olive root

If the Gentiles are grafted in replacing that which was of the desirable olive by “the flesh”

18 Do not boast over the branches. And if you boast do not bear yourselves over the branches, but the root over you

…then they ought not to boast themselves on some sort of privilege over and against those branches which have now been denied access to the root. The proper thing to do is not to compare yourselves to one another, but to recognize the “rich root.” There is no national privilege.

19 Then you would say Branches were broken off that I should be grafted in

Paul acknowledges with a good (Kalos) that this dangerous statement is true.

20 Good. By their faithlessness they were broken off, but you stand in faith. Do not think in pride but in fear.

Faithlessness is apistia, also possibly “disobedience.” Do not be minded (phronei) high, but of fear.

21 For if God did not spare the branches according to nature, neither will he spare you

Paul’s analogy begins to cut across some traditional Protestant thinking about “assurance of salvation,” but when we take his words as we find them their meaning is sobering. God has not and will not let anyone but himself determine the terms for who his people are.

22 See then the kindness and severity of God. On those falling the severity, but on you the kindness of God, if you might remain in kindness, otherwise then you would be cut off

Kindness is chrestoteta and severity is apotomian.

23 And even these (of Israel), if they might not remain in faithlessness, will be grafted in. For God is able to graft them in again

Simply kakeinoi in the beginning of the verse, but the contest implies “of Israel.” Though they have been cut off in God’s severity, God is able (dunatos) to graft them in again. N.B. The text does not say that God will graft them in again. The rest of Paul’s argument about the terms of the covenant people still stands.

24 For if you having been cut off from what is according to nature a wild olive are grafted into a cultivated olive, how much more would these according to nature be grafted onto their own olive.

And how much easier would it be for those which were the covenant people according to its flesh become members of the covenant according to grace since their flesh knows that “sap.”

25 For I do not wish you to be ignorant, brothers, of this mystery, that you might not be wiser besides yourselves, since a hardening from part has come to Israel until when the fullness of the Gentiles might enter in

Wiser beside yourselves is really “cleverer than you ought to be.” This clearly belongs to the preceding argument: You Gentile Christians ought not to vaunt yourselves over the Jews. The second half of the verse is NOT a future prediction that Paul was suddenly struck with in contradiction to the entire argument of the letter so far. Rather, it is a description of what has already happened and been accomplished through Jesus. The mystery/marvel is what Paul has been explaining. The Jews were hardened in part until the justifying death of the Messiah, at which point the full number (pleroma) of the Gentiles was able to come in. (as was promised to Abraham.)

26 And in this way all Israel will be saved, even as it is written He saving will come from Sion, he will turn ungodliness from Jacob

It is in this way—the coming in of the Gentiles—that All Israel will be saved. What is Paul saying? He is saying that Israel is not defined by the flesh, nor is it defined by the observance of Torah. Rather, in fulfillment to the promises the Covenant God made to Abraham, Israel, which was chosen by grace and justified by faith, shall all be saved in the way that he has described throughout the letter to the Romans. The Gentiles and the remnant are “Israel.” The whole process is God’s way of saving his covenant people; that is the meaning of kai houtos pas Israel sothesetai.

27 And this will be my covenant to them with me, when I take away their sins

The one saving is gone/come (there is no distinction is Gk., but the tense of the verb is undeniable) from Sion, and he has fulfilled the covenant and dealt with sin. This is no apocalyptic prediction, but a description of what Jesus has done.

28 According to the gospel they are enemies to you, but according to election they are beloved on account of their fathers

Paul now draws his conclusions for instructing the Jew-Gentile relations in light of these truths. According to the gospel of grace there is no room for the Jews, but we love them on account of the flesh which they overprize.

29 For the gifts and call of God are irrevocable

They will never lose the gift (charismata) or the call (klesis). Note that klesis is an important technical term in Paul’s “salvation process” as the first step before faith.

30 For just as you once were disobedient to God, but now you have received mercy in their disobedience

Apeitheia, not apistia. Keep in mind the argument of 9-10 throughout…God used Israel’s disobedience paradoxically to give mercy and deal with sin.

31 In this way they now have disobeyed that, by the mercy given to you, they also now might receive mercy.

Another example of houtos, always as demonstrative of manner, never temporal. The mercy which came through Israel’s disobedience is not out of their reach. They might have it. (Not must)

32 For God has imprisoned all unto disobedience that he might have mercy on all.

There are none that do not need God’s mercy. It is on the terms of his mercy through Jesus that we will receive his dikaiosune.

33 O the depth of the riches and the wisdom and the knowledge of God. How unfathomable are his judgments and unsearchable are his ways

I’ll be treading much more lightly from here out. The rest of the chapter is an epilogue to the section of 9-11, and then 12-16 is largely practical advice in light of the letter’s theological argument.

34 For who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?

Is. 40, Job. 15, Jer. 23

35 Or who has given to him even that it will be repaid to him?

Job 41. Note that Paul always denies man’s ability to demand from God.

36 That from him and through him and to him are all things. To him the glory unto eternity, amen.

In his rapture, Paul wrote a Greek sentence without a subject or a verb! But amen, nonetheless!

International Date Night: Switzerland

Tartiflette, Fondue, Toblerone, Lindt, and red wine

It was all delicious, despite the fact that James threw his snotty falling-apart teddy bear into the potato dish. (Steven was hungry, apparently.) This is why we usually start after we put him to bed.

Things James has tried to put in his mouth in the last hour

A quarter

A pebble

Multiple old cheerios under the table and radiator

A piece of old cheddar cheese on the underside of his high chair

Multiple books

The corner of a door

A box fan

A twenty dollar bill

My fingers

His fingers

His binky

His toy bear

Something small and white that was on the floor, but never retrieved from his mouth

A plastic measuring cup

My iPhone

My coffee cup

A cereal box

His pants

A table leg

Romans Commentary Project, chapter 10

9:30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles not seeking for righteousness have received it, and that righteousness by faith

9:30-10:21 recapitulates Paul’s argument about the “fall” of ethnic Israel, stated first within the historical words of YHWH through his prophets, now through the events of the Messiah’s actions and the new covenant life through faith being preached to the Gentiles—and that through faith, not works of Torah. Righteousness here is, again, dikaiosunen. Keep in mind that our functional definition is “covenant membership.” The following verses will serve to sharpen and enhance that usage in the preceding chapters. The Gentiles, not looking for covenant membership, have received, and that by faith.

31 But Israel seeking the Torah of righteousness unto Torah did not attain it.

Or, “looking for righteousness/covenant membership/dikaiosunen in Torah did not attain (ephthasen) it.

32 Why this? Since not by faith but as by works. They have stumbled upon the stumbling stone

Dia ti. Probably means: “and why not?” (dialectical) Since [their dikaiosunen] is not by faith but by the works of Torah. These works of Torah seem to be the stumbling stone that was part of the plan all along. (see next verse)

33 Even as it is written Behold I am placing in Zion a stumbling stone and a rock to make them fall, and he believing upon it will not be put to shame

Upon it could also mean upon him. Rock to make them fall is petran skandalou (hence the stone of scandal of old translations.) The closest meaning of skandalos is “that which causes sin.” It was YHWH’s intent, paradoxically, to cause the stumble and the failure. (With the purposes of ch. 7-8 in mind.)

10:1 Brothers, my heart’s desire and my prayer to God concerning them is unto salvation

Paul again states his deep personal affectation. He does not wish this upon his kinfolk.

2 For I witness for them that they have zeal of God but not according to knowledge

Knowledge is epignosin. Witness is marturo, legal language of testifying.

3 For not knowing God’s righteousness and seeking to establish their own [righteousness], they have not submitted to God’s righteousness

The second dikaiosunen is not attested in all manuscripts, but the sense remains the same. Israel’s sin is not only personal shortcomings within Torah, but also an attempt to twist Torah into something it was never intended to be—an ethnic marker of covenant membership. In doing so, they have not submitted to God’s righteousness/justification/covenant membership. (Which is, by faith.)

4 For the climax of Torah is the Messiah unto righteousness for all believing

Telos nomou could be translated a number of different ways: The end, the perfection, the completion or the satisfaction—and I like N.T. Wright’s take on it: The Climax of the Covenant. Righteousness is, again, dikaiosunen. Special weight on all.

5 For Moses writes the righteousness from Torah is “The man doing these will live by them”

Paul does not quote from Leviticus here to show the old “bad” way of doing Torah in contrast with the good new Christian one. Rather, as in the similar passage in Galatians, he is demonstrating that the true keeping of Torah is what he describes, whether for Jew or Gentile: hearing and believing.

6 And the righteousness from faith thus says “Do not say in your heart, who will ascend unto heaven? (That is to bring the Messiah down)

These two verses could easily become a quagmire if we assume that Paul, when speaking about ascending to heaven and descending to the abyss, is writing from our familiar concerns of “going to heaven or hell when we die” as the principal concern of religion and the only terms of post-mortem experience. Observe the context: the “do not say in your heart” comes from Deut 9:4—the first stern warning to Israel as it prepared for conquest that it was not from their righteousness that they would inherit the land, and that they are indeed unworthy of it because of their sin and failure. Following Moses’ guarantee of Israel’s failure in ch. 30, he tells them in v. 12-14 not to wish for someone to ascend into heaven or cross the sea that they might be able to keep Torah. (v.11 says “it is not too hard for you, nor far off.”)

7 Or, Who will descend unto the abyss? This is to raise the Messiah from the dead.

Rather, reading from Deuteronomy in the context of post-exile 2^nd temple Judaism, this is Paul’s sense: Do you want to know what doing the covenant really looks like? It isn’t waiting for someone to go do it by force—we already have a Messiah ruling above! And isn’t to call back one of your old prophets—the Messiah was already raised! Your hope isn’t in some faraway kingdom to be won by swords and Sabbaths—its to hear the word of Jesus.

8 But what does it say? The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart, this is the word of faith which we preach

Here the powerful quote from Deuteronomy is finished. Word is hrema, not logos. Preach is kerussomen, which can also be herald or proclaim.

9 Because if you might confess with your mouth Jesus is Lord and you might believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Iesoun is the object, kurion the complement. There’s much that can be said of this verse on any number of levels, but it certainly takes on a new and robust meaning here when placed in the context of “doing Torah” in the Israel story. Incidentally, this verse is a strong endorsement for what I’ve pushed in separate discussions about the original euangelion meaning “Lordship and Resurrection.” Believe is pisteuses. (Have/keep faith) Note the consecutive effect with v. 8.

10 For in the heart one believes unto justification, and by the mouth one confesses unto salvation.

This is the true keeping of Torah…this is what Paul means in v. 5

11 For the scripture says He believing upon him will not be put to shame

Put to shame is kataischunthesetai. Believing is pisteuon. (Have/keep faith). Explains Paul’s contrast to those stumbling in 9:33. (Original reference is Is. 28:16)

12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same one is Lord of all, generous unto all calling upon him

Distinction is diastole. Generous is plouton. (Enriching) Once again, emphasis on all.

13 For all which call upon the name of the Lord will be saved

Joel 2:32, buttressing salvation by confession of Lordship, which segues quite naturally into the Gentile mission.

14 How therefore might they call unto he which they have not believed? And how might they believe him they have not heard? And how might they hear without someone proclaiming/preaching?

It’s been argued that Paul’s theological point here shares an important practical concern—he wanted to use Rome as a base for a Gentile mission in Spain, as he used Antioch to Asia Minor. Proclaiming/preaching is kerossontos again. Note that Paul regards the mission to the Gentiles as an essential part of YHWH’s covenant purpose…not keeping the Gentiles out by ethnic borders.

15 And how might they preach unless they might be sent? Even as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of those pronouncing the good news

Sent is apostalosin. (Hence, apostles) The well-known reference is from Isaiah 52 and Nahum. Pronouncing the good news is euangelizomenon [ta] agatha. Good news is euangelion.

16 But not all have obeyed the good news. For Isaiah says “Lord, who has believed our message?”

Paul establishes, not only that “not all” have obeyed the gospel, but that this in fact was foreseen and forepurposed.

17 Therefore faith is from hearing, and hearing through the word of the Messiah

Word is hrematos again, not logos. Lost in translation is the interplay between the word for hearing—akoes—and the word for obedience—upakoes. It might well read “But not all have really heard the good news. Note too that the “hearing” carries with it, not only an aural reception, but an obedience to the hearing.

18 But I say, have they not heard? Indeed, Unto all the land their voice has gone out, and unto the boundaries of the inhabited world their words

Again, have they not obeyed? The particle menounge provides the effect of “on the contrary.” Have they heard? Yes, everyone has heard… Voice is “cry,” “shout,” or “clatter.” (phthongos)

19 But I say, did Israel not understand? First Moses says “I will make you jealous upon those not a nation, with a foolish nation I will make you angry”

But Israel did not hear what they heard. They did not understand. What is more, this was done on purpose, that they might be provoked. Indeed, their stumble and provocation is forepurposed. Foolish is asuneto. (Without understanding) The Jews should be jealous of the Gentiles.

20 And Isaiah says in boldness “I am found by those not seeking me, I am become visible to those not asking for me

And Isaiah will come straight out and declare, as Paul began in 9:30, that those not seeking have found, but those seeking are lost.”

21 But for Israel he says “The whole day I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people.”

Again, YHWH is just, for he has been patient with Israel, but they have disobeyed his purposes.

International Date Night, Hibachi edition

Other blogs

Check out J's foray back into the blogging world here:

http://julie-smith.blogspot.com/

and my review of Richard Hays' book at the Old Crow:

http://oldcrowlibrary.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-moral-vision-of-new-testament.html

Romans Commentary Project, chapter 9

As we enter this most contentious section of the letter I take for granted that Paul is working out the faithfulness of the covenant of God through his Messiah Jesus despite the apparent failure of ethnic Israel. The real question for our purposes is the meaning of 11:25-27, which I will present as the logical outworking of chs. 5-8 in general and chs. 9-11 specifically.

1 I am speaking the truth in the Messiah, I do not lie, by the co-witness of my conscience in the Holy Spirit

Following the conclusion of ch. 8, Paul prefaces his new argument with a solemn oath regarding his own conscience toward his subject matter—the faithfulness of God despite the ‘failure’ of ethnic Israel.

2 Since it is great sorrow to me and constant pain in my heart.

Paul answers in advance any possible interpretation of vengeful anti-Semitism from his Gentile Roman audience.

3 For I pray myself to be anathema from the Messiah for the sake of my brothers, my kinfolk according to the flesh

Kinsfolk are sungenon, sometimes “cousins” or “relations.” Anathema.

4 Which are the Israelites, of whom the sonship and the glory and the covenants, and the law-giving and the worship and the promises

Note that Paul is listing the privileges of Israel which have now, as was demonstrated earlier, been transferred to the Messiah-people. Of particular interest are the law-giving (following my argument about ch. 7) and the worship (latreia), which highlights the often overlooked transference of temple rights to the new Messiah-people.

5 Of whom the patriarchs and from whom the Messiah, according to the flesh, he being upon all blessed of God unto the ages, amen

Patriarchs or “fathers.” (pateres) An interesting alternate translation for this verse is to read Theos eulogetos as the subject instead of predicate—[The Messiah] being the blessed God upon all unto the ages—but the textual evidence is spotty.

6 And this is not that the word of God has failed, for not all those from Israel are of Israel

Ho logos tou theou here does not mean “the Christian Bible.” As in v. 28, logos means more “plan” “purpose” or “action.” (As, especially considering its LXX context, would the Hebrew davar) The sense is: YHWH didn’t mess this up—this was the plan all along. Paul again, as in v. 5, will put forth his theological argument by the characteristic Jewish mode of retelling the Israel story. His purpose here: Exactly because “Israel” does not have to mean “ethnic Jews,” YHWH has been faithful to his promises. (This is very important, obviously, to 11:25-27) I’ll take for granted the following points in the course of this argument 1) Israel’s vocation as the covenant people was always the means of rescuing the whole world. 2) The vocation was distorted by ethnic privilege, but made clear in the Messiah 3) The divine intention (or ho logos tou theou) was always to deal with evil (Sin in ch. 7) in one place (execution and judgment) 4) That place was always to be the Messiah. We must read this section as the defense to the question that Paul answers “no” in v. 14—there is no injustice on God’s part in his actions through Israel.

7 Nor is it that the descendants of Abraham are all his children, but “in Isaac descendants to you will be named”

Throughout descendants are sperma (sometimes seed) and children are tekna. In other words, “not all who can claim Abraham as their forefather are biologically related.” (See ch. 4) Explanation for the second half below.

8 This is, not these which are the children of the flesh, but those children of the promise will be reckoned unto descendants

Instead of succession through the “flesh”—which Paul has likened to the illegitimate Hagar/Ishmael relation—Paul declares that the son of the promise (epangelias) is the legitimate heir.

9 For this is the word of the promise “In this time I will come and a son shall be to Sarah”

epangelias gar o logos. Paul connects the promise to Isaac through the birth of Jacob to Sarah…but the promise had to wait.

10 And not this alone, but also Rebekah had from one husband, from our father Isaac

One husband is koiten “bedfellow.” The implication is “and something like this happened again when Rebekah had her child.” It could become a mare’s nest if not read in the context of v. 12—the similarity comes from the dispute of legitimate succession between two sons.

11 For they not yet having been born nor doing anything good or bad, that the forepurposed election of God might continue,

eklogen prothesis tou theou mene. This was not an after-the fact judgment on God’s part, but his elevation of Isaac was according to his just purpose.

12 Not from works but from the call, It was told to her that “The older will serve the younger”

And that the promise in v. 7 might be fulfilled

13 Even as it is written “Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated”

The younger son, the son to whom is promise given over the natural birthright or the birth according to the flesh, is preferred.

14 What then will we say? Surely there is not injustice on God’s part? May it not be!

Another me genoito. Paul defends YHWH’s purposes by virtue of who YHWH is as the sovereign God.

15 For he said to Moses “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.”

Eleeso and oiktireso. Quote is from Ex. 33:19.

16 Therefore it is not then of will nor of exertion but of God’s mercy

What is not of will or exertion? (trechontos) The privilege of sonship (and all the other privileges of 9:4-5) which are claimed via biological succession.

17 For the scripture says to Pharaoh that “Unto this one thing I have raised you up, that I should demonstrate in you my power and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”

As YHWH has done before, he will elevate to one place a means of executing his just judgment.

18 Therefore he then has mercy on whom he wills, and he hardens he whom he wills.

And as God hardened Pharaoh’s heart so to demonstrate his power, so might he harden Israel to demonstrate his long-promised rescue.

19 You will then say to me: Why them does he yet find fault? For who is able to stand against his will?

The following is one of the hardest passages in Paul to read. He offers no comfort about God’s goodness and kindness…he simply takes away our prerogative to question. Will (boulemati) might make better sense as “choice” throughout.

20 O man, on the contrary, who are you to be answering back to God? Surely that which is molded does not say to the molder “Why have you made me in this way?”

We are, first of all, created beings. The creator is not subject to the created.

21 Or doesn’t the potter have authority over the clay to make form his own lump one vessel of honor and another of dishonor?

Echoes much of the O.T. language about YHWH as the potter and Israel as the clay/vessel. Some translations have atimian as “ordinary use.” (Honor is timen.) One is too harsh, the other too soft, neither quite captures the original verbal effect.

22 And if God willing to demonstrate his wrath and to make known his power carried in much long-suffering the objects of wrath which are supplied unto destruction

Longsuffering is makrothumia. Israel was given plenty of time, but ultimately will function as the means by which God’s judgment is carried out…and that unto apoleian.

23 Even in order that the wealth of his glory might be made known upon the objects of his mercy which he prepared beforehand unto glory

And yet in that same act those which YHWH chose for legitimacy will be given unto glory

24 Which he also called us not alone from the Jews but also from the Gentiles (?)

Not sure whether 24 and 25 are supposed to be 2 clauses (w/a question mark) or one.

25 That even as he says in Hosea “I will call those not my people ‘my people,’ and those not beloved ‘beloved.’

Therefore the call (24) is extended to those “not his people.”

26 And it shall be in the place where it was said to them ‘You are not my people,’ there they will be called sons of the living God.”

And sonship is extended.

27 And Isaiah cried concerning Israel: “If the number of the sons of Israel were as the sand of the sea, a remnant will be saved.”

Is. 10:22-23

28 For completely and decisively the Lord will make his word upon the earth.”

Word is logos.

29 And even as Isaiah forespoke: “If the Lord of hosts had not left descendants to us, as Sodom we would have become, and even as to Gomorrah would we be likened.”

Stopping here for now, because the last 3 verses in ch. 9, I think, belong to the next stage of the argument.