Unconditional Election Part 10

X. Romans 9

If Romans 8 is the most uplifting passage in the Bible for Christians (and I believe it is) Romans 9 the less exciting attempt to defend its validity. In other words -for my fellow football fans- if Romans 8 is Darren McFadden Romans 9ff is the offensive line; pushing his enemies aside while he runs to the end zone.

Last week we saw some of what Romans 8 tells us about election. Today we look at the chapter in the Bible that explains how Romans 8 can be true while the ethnic nation of Israel, as a whole, stands in unwavering opposition to their messiah and their salvation. This is a truth that saddened Paul to no end.

After showing much love to his Jewish brethren Paul gives the thesis of the chapter, "[It] is not as though the word of God has failed" (Romans 9:6). After this the big debate is on whether Paul argues on the basis of God's choice of nations or if he argues on the basis of God's choice of individuals for salvation. Let's follow Paul's argument and see what it looks like.

9:6-9 "For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but 'Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.' This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. For this is what the promise said: 'About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son."
So now Paul is making a distinction between ethnic Israel and spiritual Israel (or the people of God). Just because one is a child of Abraham according to their genealogy does not mean they are a spiritual child of Abraham. The example is Isaac who was not Abraham's first born child and yet he inherited the promise to Abraham.

9:10-13- "And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— she was told, 'The older will serve the younger.' As it is written, 'Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

"Not only so" is our signal that Paul is going even further to make his point. He doesn't only have one example of this but he has an even better one that has no loopholes in his back pocket. He goes to the example of Jacob and Esau who had the same parents and were born into the same situation according to nature. Yet God told Rebekah that Jacob would inherit the blessing rather than his older brother Esau for a simple purpose, namely, "in order that God's purpose of election might continue..." In fact, Paul explicitly says that this was not on the basis of works but instead because of Him who calls. In other words, the difference between Jacob and Esau in God's eyes was not what one or the other would do but God's purpose for one or the other.

In his sermon, "Why I am Predestined Not to be a Hyper-Calvinist" Dr. Ergun Caner poses the question meant to refute this doctrine, "did God hate Esau because he was Esau, or did God hate Esau because of what Esau did?" Unfortunately for Dr. Caner (I do have much respect for the man and his hard work) this passage clearly go against his point. It certainly appears to be teaching that God hated Esau because He decided not to set His love on him in the same way that He did Jacob.

(Note: In a later post I will explore some objections including Paul's use of these Old Testament passages)

9:14-18- "What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! For he says to Moses, 'I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.' So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, 'For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.' So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills."

Paul, being true to his writing style, anticipates the objections to his point. This is very important for our understanding of the preceding verses (9:6-13) because objections to an argument usually say a lot about the argument itself, especially an objection raised by the author of the argument.

In this case the objection is that this is seemingly unjust on God's part. Paul uses God's words to Moses in Exodus 33:19. Paul's conclusion is that it doesn't depend on the will of man but on God. Sound familure? He's making the Jacob and Esau point again!

Paul then goes back to quoting the Old Testament where it is clear that God's purpose in raising up Pharaoh was to defeat him. The implications this has for God's sovereignty over all things are pretty huge. Consider all of the death in Egypt that resulted in God showing His power. His conclusion from Pharaoh's situation is that God not only has mercy on whomever He wills but also that He hardens whomever He wills. Nail in the coffin on this point? Not yet!

9:19-24- "You will say to me then, 'Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?' But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, 'Why have you made me like this?' Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— even us whom he^AI)"> has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?"

Now Paul anticipates another objection. This time it is the very common objection that God's absolute sovereignty over salvation negates man's responsibility in the matter. This time Paul doesn't go to the Old Testament but instead reflects on what it means to be the Creator. His point is that God, as Creator, as the right to use His creation for His purposes. We should not, however, take this into the ditch of thinking that God doesn't care what we do on earth. Even though God has a purpose for the Pharaohs of the world Paul still describes Him as enduring them with much patience. I believe this is because God is passive in reprobation. Though He calls Christians to salvation He does not actively work to make bad people bad. He simply leaves them in their rebellion against Him.

Finally Paul comes back to the Jews and Gentiles. If he were making all of these points about nations all along it would seem odd for him to say "not only of the Jews but also from the Gentiles?" As the original reader I would be saying, "isn't that what you were talking about all along?!" But Paul wasn't talking about election at a mere national level. He was teaching on the unconditional election of individuals in order to explain why the word of God has not failed despite ethnic Israel's unbelief. He will continue to explain God's redemptive plan for the Jews in the chapters that follow.

Thanks for hanging with me.

Grace and Peace,
Stephen