The Joke That Wasn’t
A Sweaty Meme and the Existential Crises We’re Not Allowed to Discuss
Part One - How trying to make a simple joke/meme turned into a window on the future of humanity
This section — the byproduct of a collaboration between myself and ChatGPT — was preceded by an attempt to have AI generate a meme about contradictions in immigration and automation, and it triggered a content warning — not because the requested image targeted anyone, but because it highlighted an uncomfortable truth: the future of work may not include workers.
That blind spot isn’t just a tech issue. It’s a human survival issue — and our institutions seem unprepared to even say the words, while in the AI alignment community, voices get louder by the second. So where’s the disconnect?
Part two will an examination of the different “values” espoused between dispensationalist and covenantal Christians.
Societies become violent when people are forbidden from asking real questions.
And right now, the questions people are forbidden to ask involve:
What our institutions believe about God
What they believe about humans
Who we are allowed to be in the future
Broken Overton Window → Cannot talk about theology → Cannot talk about purpose → Cannot talk about AI replacing purpose → → Crisis unfolds in silence
That leads into the Part Two thesis:
If humans values are not central to the future, then someone else is writing the story of what we are for.
So are our values something we receive from some super intelligent AGI “god” in the future? Or was the concept of the human soul — imago Dei — already revealed to us in the past, and what on earth could that possibly have to do with emerging technologies? I believe if you stick with me for a few minutes you’ll agree — because we haven’t been able to have precisely this conversation, it’s coming back to haunt us.
The Joke That Wasn’t Allowed
I asked an AI system to generate a meme based on the classic “superhero sweating over two buttons” template.
Button A: “Unfettered immigration is our strength.”
Button B: “Low-cost labour will be replaced by robots.”
No group named. No slurs. Just a contradiction policymakers and CEOs live in every day. But instead of laughs, I hit a wall — a filter designed to protect people by preventing us from talking about choices that will profoundly hurt them if we get them wrong. The irony writes itself. The best I could generate was the following, and while the point is still made, naming genetics as a category was my target.
The Blind Spot
I watched the MIT panel “AI and the Future of Work”. Brilliant people. Accomplished. Award-winning.
But the conversation mostly stayed inside the safe sandbox:
✅ “Some tasks automated, some new tasks created”
✅ “We should think about labour protections”
✅ “This could increase productivity”
Every statement technically true, yet completely inadequate to the moment.
The reality they danced around:
There may not be enough “new tasks” to replace what’s coming next.
Not because humans become useless — because AGI-trajectory AI makes certain forms of human contribution economically irrational.
And here is the huge shift they missed:
Immigration debates and labour-automation debates used to be separate.
In the 4IR worldview, they converge:
everyone without elite skills risks being replaced.
Not later. Now. (Ask junior coders, copywriters, call centre staff, and very soon drivers)
The Official Story vs. The Real Incentives
We are told:
Mass automation is coming to save the climate, fix inequality, and “level the playing field.”
This rhetoric appears in nearly every WEF, IMF, and UNEP framing document on the Fourth Industrial Revolution.
But the real drivers? Publicly stated by the same leaders:
Cut labor costs
“AI will eliminate a large portion of jobs” — Sam Altman, OpenAI CEOExtend control
“You will own nothing and you will be happy.” — WEF promotional video, 2016Manage population “excess”
“We are facing a useless class.” — Yuval Noah Harari, 2020 interviewAccelerate transition away from resource-intensive lifestyles
“Decarbonization requires radical economic transformation.” — BlackRock 2021 letter to investors
These are not fringe voices. These are the architects.
The meme wasn’t about immigrants. It was about the story we tell to justify a new social order.
What Happens When “Stakeholder Capitalism” Meets AGI?
The pitch:
More equity
More inclusion
More sustainability
The fine print:
A system optimized for efficiency does not optimize for humans.
When everything is data:
People become data providers
Jobs become training environments
Education becomes prompt-engineering for compliance
Welfare becomes a subscription to existence
And the biggest contradiction of all:
We tell citizens automation will free them while designing systems where doing nothing makes them economically irrelevant. So let me ask you a question, does it matter what a person like Sam Altman believes? What about Lindsey Graham or Donald Trump? Bibi Netanyahu or Norman Finklestein?
The Royalty Trap
A popular proposal:
Workers should earn royalties when their labour data trains an AI.
Sounds fair — until you ask:
How do you value an action that millions also perform?
How long does that royalty last? Excluding when?
What if the model eventually learns without you?
Even labour economists like Daron Acemoglu (MIT) acknowledge:
“Workers’ contributions may make them more replaceable.”
The better you are, the faster you obsolete yourself. That’s the punchline nobody wants to deliver.
Why Filters Hurt the Workers They Claim to Help
When you can’t name the problem:
You can’t prepare people for the consequences
You infantilize those most at risk
You delay political accountability until after the damage is done
You remove meaning — the one resource automation can’t replace
The people most protected from speech are the ones most exposed to the outcome.
The Existential Stakes We’re Tiptoeing Around
If these technologies succeed fully:
The elites don’t just win the economy.
They win definition power over the role of human beings.
We can’t outsource this conversation to:
technocrats optimizing GDP,
academics modeling labour elasticity,
or safety boards afraid to offend anyone.
This is bigger than policy. This is anthropology. This is metaphysics.
What is a human life for when machines do everything better? Someone joked during the panel that “maybe God” is the missing voice. That joke is on us, because that question isn’t optional anymore. The only remaining question is do we want the Lion, the Lamb, or the reintegration of the mystical body with the people of God?
A Better Path Exists — But It Won’t Come From Silence
We need:
Human-centric AI, not human-optional systems
Labor as agency, not as data exhaust
Dialogue for adults, not padded-room discourse
Technology that expands purpose, not replaces it
We do not need to fear AI — We need to fear the concept of a future with no role for humans.
This All Started With a Meme
A silly image. A simple contradiction. A polite “no, you’re not allowed to say that.” But humour is how humans notice absurdity, and absurdity is how we find truth hiding in plain sight. We don’t need to agree on immigration. We don’t need to agree on automation. We only need to agree on this:
Humans must remain the point.
Not the byproduct.
If we can’t say that, we’ve already lost.
Part Two - Breaking the Overton Window
There’s a new clip going viral. Hat tip Liberty Lockdown Youtube channel and Clint Russel for helping do his part. This is an important video, if you have a few minutes please show him some support and hit the like, if you like.
If you don’t here’s the trending clip, and note there is a shortened version out there that’s competing for eyeballs, but you need to hear the full thing. In the video above Clint let’s us know this clip is one month after October 7th, 2023, confirmed by the man who claims he asked the question.
Interestingly (at least to me) the young man asking the question “liked” my repost of his full version.
His full response — linked in the above screen shot — read out like this:
This was MY (yes that’s me asking) question to Charlie Kirk about the Israeli attack and Mossad in 2023 Looking back on it, his answer was pretty good. At the time I thought he was intentionally trying to disassociate blame from all of Israel as a whole. May he rest in peace.
Jimmy Dore is providing his own take stringing together a number of relevant points, also worth your time in my humble opinion, but let’s just be clear about something first — the timeline. According to Wikipedia:
Timeline
06:30: Air raid sirens were activated in southern and central Israel in response to Hamas missiles.[23]
07:40: The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) confirmed Hamas militants had entered southern Israel and asked residents of Sderot and other cities to remain indoors.[24]
08:15: Sirens were activated in Jerusalem following a rocket barrage that landed on the city’s western edge.
08:23: Israel declared a state of alert for war, activating its reservists, in response to continued rocket attacks.
08:34: Israel announced that it had begun counteroffensive operations against Hamas.
10:47: The Israeli Air Force (IAF) began attacking Gaza.
11:35: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made his first statement, declaring that Israel was at war.[25]
12:21: The IDF began operations to relieve cities in southern Israel as the number of rockets launched from Gaza increased to over 1,200.
18:00: The Israeli security cabinet said on 8 October that a state of war had officially begun at this time.[26]
It’s worth noting Hamas would launch rockets at Israel on a somewhat regular basis, but an offensive was something novel and the first report of Hamas militants inside Israel was at 7:40AM, at least according to Wikipedia.
According to the Jerusalem post, the timeline shifts and gets way more complex — and even less clear — but it’s worth a read. It suggests the first indications someone was alerted something was happening was around 2AM when Halevi — someone I can only assume is Herzi Halevi because the article isn’t explicit — is “woken up” and “orders more intel”. But when I say it gets more complex I mean there’s actually a lot going on, and some of the Hamas fighters directly attacked Israeli soldiers, something that gets lost in the way most commentators, including Kirk, speak about the events of that day:
Approximately 5,400-5,600 Hamas invaders penetrated Israel on October 7, 2023, in 114 spots along the Gaza border fence. This included 37 areas that were easier to breach and 77 actual new breaks in the fence, leading to attacks and battles in 41 different areas.
They faced only 767 IDF soldiers and 13 spread-out and isolatable tanks…..
6:29 -7:00 a.m. – The first wave of attacks begins: 1,175 Hamas invaders (split into 20 battalions) penetrate Israel, while 1,406 rockets are fired at Israel from Gaza. The overwhelming majority of the rockets are fired on the Gaza border villages, Ashkelon, and Sderot, but some are also fired at Beersheba and farther. This wave of invaders targeted IDF positions, bases, the Gaza Division Forward Headquarters at Re’im, a Unit 8200 base, and the police station at Sderot.
So is it correct to suggest that it took Israel 20 hours to respond? Not exactly.
The language needs to be cleaned up. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t ask questions, especially in the wake of the events surrounding the so called “Covid-19 pandemic”, something Charlie addresses in the viral clip.
Before we look into the Jimmy Dore video, the comments from the Jerusalem post are very interesting, specifically these two:
Hamas exploited a serious weakness caused by Lapid’s seditious coup attempt during Judicial Reforms cause rioting among the people, dissent, discord among military ranks, insubordinate pilots refused to serve. Gallant didnt do a thing to reprimand or make an example of the insubordinate. Instead of Gallant trying to improve the bad moral among IDF, he joined in and was part of the insurrection. PM Netanyahu fired him then rehired him because of his seats in Knesset and had to then fire him during a war...
John 2 March, 2025
Replying to Aaron Joseph
Thank’s Aaron, I wished more people would understand that. I pray that Israel and the Jewish people realize that fundamental Islam and all jihadist war criminals must be destroyed, there will never be true and lasting peace with them. US and Israel’s politicians need to realize that this satanic ideology is a holy war and should be fought like one. Israel and USA needs to deal the jihadist’s starting with Iran and Turkey, the death knell and ban and outlaw this satanic blood cult that demands of it’s adherents, “Murder all those infidel’s who do not believe in allah,” Quran Surah 9:5, the only man made religion and cult that vows to destroy all others. HaShem in Torah and Tanakh forbids Israel His people from making any kind of a treaty or covenant with them or to divide HaShem’s land or even to negotiate with them nor to allow the surrounding enemy to live in Israel’s Historical Biblical lands...
To be clear I’m just showing you one opinion, but embedded in that comment there are indeed two ways to look at what is happening in Israel, and they’re both religiously polarized — Opposed. This is important to recognize and we’ll get to why very shortly.
Here’s Dore’s take with the help of the hilarious Kurt Metzger.
I direct your attention to approximately 8:15, the clip played there is extraordinarily significant. In fact I just isolated it. The entire clip is worth watching but the first minute and a half are key.
I’ve isolated the clip if you wish to watch it below — Charlie is speaking to one of his TPUSA youth who tells Charlie he’s a Catholic convert from Judaism.
It addresses Ted Cruz and his position on Israel, which is based in the Old Testament, and the New Testament, as opposed to being strictly NT. I’ve addressed this issue several times previously so I won’t belabour it, but I will nutshell it — the way I’m seeing it:
The US political scene Christianity is split into two main camps right now. This “schism” resembles others before it, but at the end of the day we are talking about the difference between “Judeo-Christian”, or a largely Dispensationalist Protestantism, who reject Catholicism, the Church, and the concept of the “Old man” and “New man” from the Apostle Paul — This is Peter’s Church —
— and Anglo Protestant Christian, a form of Protestantism who “reformed” its relationship with the Vatican — Paul’s Church.
I have repeatedly stated I’m not an “expert” in anything, so let’s hear from “Christoverall.com” :
Dispensational and Covenant Theology
By Stephen Wellum
Within evangelical theology, people tend to view the Bible’s overarching storyline within the larger views of dispensational and covenant theology, with progressive covenantalism serving as a mediating view….
Dispensationalism derives its name from the biblical term oikonomia (Eph. 1:10; 3:2, 9; Col. 1:25), which means “to manage, regulate, administer, and plan the affairs of a household.” The word conveys the idea that God’s plan or administration is accomplished in the world according to various “dispensations” or “administrations” of God’s plan. Although covenants are important for dispensationalists, unlike progressive covenantalism, they do not view the progression of the covenants as the backbone to the Bible’s story and the central way God’s plan unfolds over time.
Dispensationalism is known for dividing history into various “dispensations” which reflects God’s ordering of his redemptive plan.… However, the word “dispensation” is not completely helpful for distinguishing dispensationalism from other views, since all Christians believe in distinct dispensations or epochs in the unfolding of God’s plan. For this reason, one cannot defend the uniqueness of dispensationalism by merely appealing to the word; one must look elsewhere to determine what is unique about the view.
So what, then, is distinctive about dispensationalism? Various “essentials” have been proposed but what is central to dispensationalism is a specific understanding of the Israel-church relationship, which in turn is organically related to their understanding of the biblical covenants. For all varieties of dispensationalism, Israel refers to an ethnic, national people and the church is never the transformed, restored eschatological Israel in God’s plan. The salvation of Gentiles is not part of the fulfillment of the promises made to Israel as a nation now realized in the church. Instead, God has promised national Israel, first in the Abrahamic covenant and re-affirmed by the prophets, the possession of the Promised Land under Christ’s rule as the Davidic king, which still awaits a future fulfillment in the premillennial return of Christ and in the consummation.
The church, then, is distinctively new in God’s purposes and ontologically different from Israel. Although in our present dispensation the church is comprised of believing Jews and Gentiles, the church only receives the spiritual blessings of the Spirit that were promised to Israel, not all of her national blessings. In the future, Christ will rule over believing nations, including Israel, but not the church in her present form. The church as a present-day covenant people will not receive all of God’s promises equally and fully in Christ or continue in its present form. Instead, believing Jews and Gentiles, who now compose the church, will join the redeemed of national Israel and the Gentile nations to live under Christ’s rule according to their respective national identities and specific promises.
In my humble opinion we can think of this as a marriage between Literalism and Materialism, which is where we get concepts like the “bio-digital convergence”, and the “military industrial complex” — Both of these organizations represent an attempt to not only reconstruct and simulate the material world, they also attempt to intervene and shape it using prophetic Biblical interpretations that loosely guide their actions.
In this way, a clear distinction is maintained between Israel as a nation and the church as a people, who at present, in an inaugurated form, illustrate what is still to come but will not continue forever in its present form.
Dispensationalism also affirms that the church began at Pentecost with the gift of the Spirit. Thus, most insist that the salvation experience of the person in the church is qualitatively different from the salvation experience of the Israelite under the old covenant. Also, given the Israel-church distinction, dispensationalists see more discontinuity from the old to the new covenant in relation to the nature and structure of the covenant communities, in contrast to covenant theology. Not surprisingly, given the Israel-church distinction and its outworking in dispensational theology, the major theological differences between dispensational and covenant theology often emerge in ecclesiology and eschatology.
Those two words are very important and we will attempt to define them with the help of AI, which I would argue understands relationships between concepts more than just mere “facts”, which incidentally means it’s a sign in the way that dispensationalists might try to interpret it, and they most certainly are, you can see it everywhere once you realize what’s going on.
According to Gemini:
Ecclesiology is the theological study of the Christian Church, encompassing its origins, relationship to Jesus, role in salvation, and structure. It examines the church as a collective body of believers, its governance, mission, and how it is to function in the world, often looking at its relationship to scripture and tradition. The study includes how individual congregations and denominations should operate and interact with society.
Key aspects of ecclesiology
The nature of the Church:
This includes understanding the church not just as a physical building, but as the “body of Christ,” a family of believers, or a building of living stones.
Role in salvation:
Ecclesiology explores the church’s place in God’s plan for salvation and its role in helping people find a relationship with the divine.
Leadership and structure:
It investigates different forms of church governance, leadership roles, and how authority is exercised, as seen in discussions from the University of St. Thomas.
Unity and division:
Ecclesiology is central to understanding Christian unity, with its study being integral to resolving schisms and divisions within Christianity.
Mission and discipline:
It examines the mission of the church in spreading the Gospel and the importance of maintaining discipline and accountability among its members.
Historical development:
The study traces the evolution of the church’s doctrines and practices over time, with different traditions having their own specific ecelesiological perspectives. For example, Catholic ecclesiology focuses on the nature of the Catholic Church in the economy of salvation, while OrthodoxWiki discusses it from an Orthodox Christian viewpoint.
Regarding ecclesiology, since the church is distinctively new due to the newness of the Spirit’s permanent indwelling in the believer, dispensationalists view the nature of the church, along with its structure and ordinances, as distinct from Israel. Regarding the nature of the church, in contrast to covenant theology, dispensational ecclesiology views the church as constituted by a regenerate people and permanently indwelt by the Spirit, not as a “mixed” community of believers and unbelievers. Also, dispensational ecclesiology affirms credobaptism, contra paedobaptism, since one cannot equate the sign of the old covenant with the sign of the new, given the essential Israel-church distinction and what baptism signifies for the church. By contrast, covenant theology rejects the Israel-church distinction of dispensationalism and argues for continuity between them, both in terms of the nature of the covenant people (and similarity of salvation experience) and the meaning of the covenant signs of circumcision and baptism. On these points, dispensational ecclesiology differs from the ecclesiology of covenant theology.
Eschatology is the study of “last things,” or the final events in human history, death, and the universe. It includes a range of beliefs about the end of the world, the Last Judgment, the afterlife, and the ultimate destiny of humankind and the created order. This field of theology is found in many religions, including Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, as well as in some secular philosophies.
Key themes in eschatology:
The end of the world:
Beliefs about the climax of history, a final judgment, or a coming new creation.
The afterlife:
Discussions about the state of the soul after death, including heaven, hell, and resurrection.
Messianic beliefs:
The role of a Messiah or divine figure in the final events, such as the Second Coming of Christ in Christianity.
Human destiny:
How human history and individual lives will conclude and what ultimate meaning or purpose they have.
Significance:
Shapes religious beliefs:
Eschatology is a major theme throughout many scriptures and helps shape a religion’s overall view of God’s purposes and the future.
Provides hope and meaning:
For believers, these doctrines can offer hope for a better future and a sense of purpose, especially in times of crisis.
Influences daily life:
Eschatology can influence the lives of individuals and communities, affecting everything from their theology to their ministry and how they view the world.
Regarding eschatology, given the Israel-church distinction and God’s unchanging promise to Israel of living in the land ruled by the Davidic King (i.e., Jesus), dispensationalism affirms a distinct future for national Israel, tied to her national identity, in a future millennial age and continuing in the consummation. Much of the rationale for their form of premillennialism is their belief that specific promises to Israel remain unfulfilled from the Old Testament, which God will fulfill. For progressive dispensationalists, the kingdom is viewed as a multinational order of redeemed peoples on a renewed earth. Israel, as a redeemed nation, is guaranteed her national and territorial identity due to God’s promise, and redeemed Gentile nations will also live according to their national identities on a new earth.
By no means am I passing judgement on anyone because that is not my place, but if you can read that last line and not understand that it is genetic materialism — bio- digital convergence" — suggesting that the “races” are different, something that is also the major underlying theme of “evolutionism” as a whole, which is inherently “racist”, something that Tucker Carlson repeatedly rejects, then you’re hearing something different than I am.
Jesus told us that we are all brother and sisters — what makes us human is not our genes or our geography, but the holy spirit — the Trinity, that I’m now feeling is the missing mysticism the Catholic Church revitalizes, reanimates, and restores to the missing heart/soul to the dispensationalist/materialist world view.
By contrast, covenant theology rejects this form of premillennialism, mainly because they view all of God’s promises reaching their fulfillment in Christ and the dawning of the new creation, which the church, as the restored eschatological Israel inherits and receives….
Covenant theology views the covenants as more than a theme of Scripture. Instead, covenants function as the Bible’s own internal structure by which God’s plan unfolds over time. Although covenant theology is not monolithic, broadly, covenant theology has taught that all of God’s relations to humans are understood in terms of three covenants: the pre-temporal “covenant of redemption” (pactum salutis) between the triune persons; the “covenant of works” (foedus operum) made with Adam before the Fall on behalf of the entire human race; and “the covenant of grace” (foedus gratiae) made with Christ as the last Adam, and in him with all the elect as his seed, which, in history, is unfolded over time by different covenant administrations.
While covenant theology admits there are a plurality of covenants in Scripture, it tends to subsume all post-fall covenants under the overarching theological category of the covenant of grace. This allows for a strong continuity between the covenants since all of them are an expression of the one covenant of grace. Although there are administrative differences between the covenants, each covenant is substantially or essentially the same, and as such, the emphasis is on the unity of one covenant of grace.
For this reason, unlike dispensationalism, covenant theology insists on the continuity between Israel and the church, which directly impacts ecclesiology and eschatology. For example, it teaches that Israel and the church are by nature essentially the same, yet administered differently. Covenant theology argues that there is continuity between Israel and the church in at least three ways: both communities are comprised of believers and unbelievers (i.e., a “mixed” people within the covenant community); their respective covenant signs (i.e., circumcision and baptism) signify the same spiritual reality, thus the rationale for applying baptism to infants in the church; and the salvation experience of believers in Israel and the church is basically the same. The only real difference is that the “church” is more racially mixed and a more knowledgeable version of “Israel.” Since the salvation experience and the Spirit’s indwelling is the same, the only difference is that Christians may experience a greater “consciousness and enjoyment” of salvation than OT saints.
So what does all this mean? An opinion:
Christians are basically Jewish believers without all the baggage, burden, or identity issues - not “ethnically”, but spiritually — ethnically Jewish people can Choose to be both.
People who identify as “Spiritually Jewish” — because it’s a Choice — are not Christians, because they have refused to recognize that Jesus was only half man, half spirit - but fully God, in the Christian belief and new covenant.
For “Israel” to be fully “restored” would require the Church of Peter, who’s mission was to the ethnically Jewish people, and the Church of Paul, who’s mission was to everyone else, to be brought back together.
“Dispensationalists” are literalist/materialists — Peters Church, and its “spiritual” home is in the geographical location of Israel — Lamb
“Covenantal” Christians are metaphysical — Paul’s Church, and its “spiritual” home is, for the most part, in the geographical location of Rome — Lion
So, will Israel and the Jewish people as a whole serve themselves up as the new sacrificial lamb just to bring about their own, OT version of God with the help of the unwitting, violence pushing dispensationalists that turn the lions into lambs?
Or can Peter(Jews) and Paul(gentiles) be reconciled before we tear each other apart, only to be wounded before the real storm is upon us.
We must be able to speak about these things openly and honestly. If we don’t, that’s when the violence happens. But it starts with trying to decide what is and what is not okay to talk about. With the rise of social media and largely thanks to the actions of Elon Musk, the “Overton window” — things that are socially acceptable to talk about — has not just been shifted, it’s been busted wide open and many people are franticly trying to replace it with new glass.
Romans 9:
Paul’s Anguish Over Israel
9 I speak the truth in Christ—I am not lying, my conscience confirms it through the Holy Spirit— 2 I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my people, those of my own race, 4 the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption to sonship; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. 5 Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised![a] Amen.
God’s Sovereign Choice
6 It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7 Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.”[b] 8 In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring. 9 For this was how the promise was stated: “At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son.”[c]
10 Not only that, but Rebekah’s children were conceived at the same time by our father Isaac. 11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: 12 not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.”[d] 13 Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”[e]
14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses,
“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”[f]
16 It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17 For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”[g] 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” 20 But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’”[h] 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?
22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24 even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? 25 As he says in Hosea:
“I will call them ‘my people’ who are not my people;
and I will call her ‘my loved one’ who is not my loved one,”[i]
26 and,
“In the very place where it was said to them,
‘You are not my people,’
there they will be called ‘children of the living God.’”[j]
27 Isaiah cries out concerning Israel:
“Though the number of the Israelites be like the sand by the sea,
only the remnant will be saved.
28 For the Lord will carry out
his sentence on earth with speed and finality.”[k]
29 It is just as Isaiah said previously:
“Unless the Lord Almighty
had left us descendants,
we would have become like Sodom,
we would have been like Gomorrah.”[l]
Israel’s Unbelief
30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone. 33 As it is written:
“See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes people to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall,
and the one who believes in him will never be put to shame.”[m]