# Paul's statement in Romans 9 (willing to be accursed for the sake of others)



## Pergamum (Jul 30, 2016)

> For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, (Romans 9:3)



Is this an admirable sentiment and worthy to be emulated? Or must we excuse it as a foolish outburst of emotion?


----------



## JimmyH (Jul 30, 2016)

In context I think he was quite serious. He loved his kinsmen. Looking at what he endured willingly to preach the Gospel, along with his final martyrdom, I'd call that a serious man.


----------



## a mere housewife (Jul 30, 2016)

It seems like a Christlike desire in some sense? -- Christ was willing to be made the curse for his kinsmen/brothers 'according to the flesh' so that they could become sons of God.

But this statement follows directly on 'What shall separate us from the love of Christ?' After his absolute confidence that nothing is able to separate us from God's love in Christ -- this seems more like a very strong way to express his grief and desire for their salvation? (But I could almost wish that I were able to be cut off for their sakes!)

(So I don't think it's necessarily a sentiment for us to imitate or a foolish outburst? but a very effective -- very contrastive -- way to communicate the strength of Paul's longing for Israel.)


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Jul 30, 2016)

Perg:

Do you seriously think that God would, in a didactic portion of His Word (as is Paul's epistle to the Romans), permit Paul to give expression to "a foolish outburst of emotion?"

One understands that in a narrative portion of the Bible, all sorts of things, proper and improper, may appear, because God's Word in a narrative section might simply be nothing more than an accurate recording of what someone said. 

If didactic portions of the Word are thought to contain such "recorded improprieties," perhaps we could regard what Paul says about same-sex congress at the end of Romans 1 in the same fashion: he was disgusted by homosexuality and spoke harshly. No, he spoke quite soberly.

Ever how we read this remarkable expression, I don't think that we have any warrant whatsoever even to entertain the "foolish outburst of emotion" hypothesis or to raise such a possibility. Paul here expresses his heart for his people, this is the expression of love, as one says to another, "I would die for you." Paul says "I would die eternally for you." Perhaps hyperbole since he knows such is not possible, but the language of love, longing, and deep desire often takes hyperbolic flight. 

I agree with Heidi that it's not necessarily something to imitate (though very Christ-like). I think that it's an expression that arises from Paul's place in redemptive history and is a cry with far reaching dimensions. 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## a mere housewife (Jul 30, 2016)

Alan D. Strange said:


> I think that it's an expression that arises from Paul's place in redemptive history and is a cry with far reaching dimensions.



This makes sense of things to me, Pastor Strange. Thank you.


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 30, 2016)

Alan D. Strange said:


> Perg:
> 
> Do you seriously think that God would, in a didactic portion of His Word (as is Paul's epistle to the Romans), permit Paul to give expression to "a foolish outburst of emotion?"
> 
> ...



Dr Strange,

You wrote:



> Do you seriously think that God would, in a didactic portion of His Word (as is Paul's epistle to the Romans), permit Paul to give expression to "a foolish outburst of emotion?"



Yes! I agree with you.

If being godly means to be conformed to the will and disposition of God, then should we label this statement by Paul to be "godly" in that God also is disposed the same way? In that he desires the salvation of all, even though He has not so ordained such a thing to come to pass? 

I see this verse as relating both to the attitude that evangelists should have (to emulate Paul, who emulated Christ)as well as supporting the sincerity of God's appeals to the lost (namely, that God desires that the lost be saved). 

I recently had a High Calvinist tell me that Christ may have wept for Jerusalem in his human flesh, but this was only due to Him being in His state of humiliation and this fact does not tell us anything about His desire to save the lost. Likewise, I have heard a High Calvinist state that we cannot derive any doctrine from Paul's "outburst" here.

If we defend our own desire for all to be saved and even weep for such a thing, yet deny this disposition in our God, we thus make all prayers ridiculous when we pray, “Let me be conformed to your will, oh Lord!” for we must desire what God desires and if God does not desire it but we desire it, then there is a mismatch between our disposition to bless and God's. And if this is so, then Paul's desire would be displeasing to God instead of a pleasing and commendable attitude to have towards the lost.


----------



## earl40 (Jul 30, 2016)

Pergamum said:


> Alan D. Strange said:
> 
> 
> > Perg:
> ...



I understand you wish to line up with the will of Jesus. Your thoughts that our Lord Jesus somehow cannot have the will as expressed _in His humanity is different_ than the will of His divine decree in His divinity is the problem you appear to be expressing. Jesus has two wills is the answer to your dilemma, and He is allowed to express His human will like Paul did,in a sense. Also the word "could" is used in Paul's phrase, knowing that apart from his assurance in Our Lord he "could" wish in desiring something that is impossible, in that he was accursed.


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 31, 2016)

earl40 said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > Alan D. Strange said:
> ...



Yes, Jesus has two wills..but they are never in contradiction.

When I have asked High Calvinists about the tears of Jesus before Jeruslaem, I have had several explain away these tears as merely due to Christ’s human nature, part of Christ’s humanity only.

BUT...

Should we imagine then that Jesus in human flesh is, therefore, more compassionate than God? Or that these tears were a mere human defect produced from taking on human flesh? 

Is not Christ the perfect image of the invisible God? 

And is not His human will in perfect cooperation and harmony with the Divine will of God within him? Is He not inseparably true God and true man? At the sixth ecumenical council (Constantinople III, 681) the Church confessed that Christ possesses two wills and two natural operations, divine and human, which are not opposed to each other in the least, but rather, cooperate fully. Christ's human will does not, therefore, oppose or contradict His divine will…His two natures being joined together in perfect harmony without confusion. 

And it is this God-Man who wept for lost souls, knowing full well their future. And by doing so, Christ revealed the heart of God to us.

What is more, should I as a missionary strive to model this heart of Jesus as he wept before Jerusalem? Is there is some discord between God in human flesh and God Himself, and if so, which do I try to emulate? Or rather is there perfect Trinitarian harmony regarding God’s loving disposition to bless His creatures and do we enter into that fellowship and gain this same heart when we are saved (as evidenced by the grief of Paul towards his lost kinsman...in imitation of Jesus before Jerusalem).


----------



## earl40 (Jul 31, 2016)

Pergamum said:


> Yes, Jesus has two wills..but they are never in contradiction.



Did I insinuate the human will of Jesus was different than the divine will of what people _should_ do? 




Pergamum said:


> When I have asked High Calvinists about the tears of Jesus before Jeruslaem, I have had several explain away these tears as merely due to Christ’s human nature, part of Christ’s humanity only.
> 
> BUT...
> 
> ...



So as the perfect image of God does the divine essence cry "tears" or regret those who do not come to the Son? I believe your answer to this question should help us distinguish the wills of Jesus of what men _should do_ vs. what they _will do_.



Pergamum said:


> And is not His human will in perfect cooperation and harmony with the Divine will of God within him? Is He not inseparably true God and true man? At the sixth ecumenical council (Constantinople III, 681) the Church confessed that Christ possesses two wills and two natural operations, divine and human, which are not opposed to each other in the least, but rather, cooperate fully. Christ's human will does not, therefore, oppose or contradict His divine will…His two natures being joined together in perfect harmony without confusion.
> 
> And it is this God-Man who wept for lost souls, knowing full well their future. And by doing so, Christ revealed the heart of God to us.



Jesus, as a man, is allowed to weep and cry over the lost, who are still His creation, and in no way wills them to perish, in of themselves, but the condemnation is because of the sin Adam committed which was imputed to them.




Pergamum said:


> What is more, should I as a missionary strive to model this heart of Jesus as he wept before Jerusalem? Is there is some discord between God in human flesh and God Himself, and if so, which do I try to emulate? Or rather is there perfect Trinitarian harmony regarding God’s loving disposition to bless His creatures and do we enter into that fellowship and gain this same heart when we are saved (as evidenced by the grief of Paul towards his lost kinsman...in imitation of Jesus before Jerusalem).



Of course you should be like Jesus and Paul for you are a human.


----------



## a mere housewife (Aug 1, 2016)

Pergs, I came back to this because of the reading in my (usually quite helpful) devotional today. It was using this passage to talk about the helplessness of God. I think a problem with failing to guard a distinction between the divine essence and God's goodness revealed to us in our own nature and condition is that you wind up saying things like 'Even God *can't* save you' (I have read that, too), or speaking about God's helplessness -- small -- nonexistent -- comfort for those of us who either feel powerless to save ourselves, or to save our loved ones. Why bring all things to Jesus when God can only helplessly cry, too?

Jesus revealed the goodness of God to me in my limited (and emotional) nature, subject to the conditions of my fallen world. That is the only revelation I can hope to imitate, and the one that speaks most fully to my heart and needs while I am here. I don't need to see more than Jesus to trust God with everything, or to know how I ought to act in order to be like Him. I am not called on to imitate divine essence -- impassibility, omnipotence, simplicity. I don't see how it would help to think that divine essence was swallowing up Jesus' humanity while he was on earth -- that he was revealing a divine nature not at all impacted by or subject to our humanity. We couldn't hope to imitate that sort of goodness at all. It couldn't speak to us as Christ's tears do, right where we are. We see His compassion here and we trust Him more with our loved ones who need saving in various ways.

Just from a layperspective, I would feel that any minister who used this passage as exemplary of the love we should each have -- ie, we should each seek the salvation of others to the degree of personally wishing to be cut off from Christ -- would be mis-using it. Many already struggle with loving others more than God, with not trusting God's plan for their loved ones. Paul could express this deep desire for the salvation of others in faith and trust -- identifying with Christ; but many people (myself included) could only express such a desire in doubt and despair -- identifying more with their loved ones than with Jesus. The ground of our love for the lost needs to be trust, hope, in an all sufficient God. Otherwise we are swallowed up by our own empathy, very easily overwhelmed by the devastating circumstances He allows, doubting His good plan (which we would prefer to alter) or His power (even the omnipotent, eternally blessed divine essence can only cry in the face of human rejection while history spins out increasing pain). Love has to have a firm center of faith.


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 2, 2016)

a mere housewife said:


> Pergs, I came back to this because of the reading in my (usually quite helpful) devotional today. It was using this passage to talk about the helplessness of God. I think a problem with failing to guard a distinction between the divine essence and God's goodness revealed to us in our own nature and condition is that you wind up saying things like 'Even God *can't* save you' (I have read that, too), or speaking about God's helplessness -- small -- nonexistent -- comfort for those of us who either feel powerless to save ourselves, or to save our loved ones. Why bring all things to Jesus when God can only helplessly cry, too?
> 
> Jesus revealed the goodness of God to me in my limited (and emotional) nature, subject to the conditions of my fallen world. That is the only revelation I can hope to imitate, and the one that speaks most fully to my heart and needs while I am here. I don't need to see more than Jesus to trust God with everything, or to know how I ought to act in order to be like Him. I am not called on to imitate divine essence -- impassibility, omnipotence, simplicity. I don't see how it would help to think that divine essence was swallowing up Jesus' humanity while he was on earth -- that he was revealing a divine nature not at all impacted by or subject to our humanity. We couldn't hope to imitate that sort of goodness at all. It couldn't speak to us as Christ's tears do, right where we are. We see His compassion here and we trust Him more with our loved ones who need saving in various ways.
> 
> Just from a layperspective, I would feel that any minister who used this passage as exemplary of the love we should each have -- ie, we should each seek the salvation of others to the degree of personally wishing to be cut off from Christ -- would be mis-using it. Many already struggle with loving others more than God, with not trusting God's plan for their loved ones. Paul could express this deep desire for the salvation of others in faith and trust -- identifying with Christ; but many people (myself included) could only express such a desire in doubt and despair -- identifying more with their loved ones than with Jesus. The ground of our love for the lost needs to be trust, hope, in an all sufficient God. Otherwise we are swallowed up by our own empathy, very easily overwhelmed by the devastating circumstances He allows, doubting His good plan (which we would prefer to alter) or His power (even the omnipotent, eternally blessed divine essence can only cry in the face of human rejection while history spins out increasing pain). Love has to have a firm center of faith.



Thank you, Heidi.


----------

