Society of Evangelical ArminiansHomeMember LoginHome
Romans 9: An Arminian/New Perspective Reading
Bible PassagesElectionPredestination
Introduction
Romans 9 is often cited as one of the clearest examples in Scripture of the Reformed doctrine of individual election: It discusses God�s sovereign choice of Isaac in preference to Ishmael and Jacob rather than Esau, without regard to any merit of the chosen or demerit of those who were not chosen. It counters what would later be the Arminian objection that unconditional election appears unjust to our human sense of justice, and uses Pharaoh as an example of someone whom God 'raised up' for the express purpose of becoming a demonstration of God�s power. God bears with great patience these 'objects of wrath,' in order to glorify himself before the 'objects of his mercy,' that is, the elect (see Augustine, �To Prosper and Hilary� 14; Calvin, Institutes 3.22.4-6).
I would contend that this interpretation ignores the larger context of Romans 9-11, whose main theme is struggling with the implications of the Gospel for the nation of Israel. It also ignores the Old Testament contexts of Paul�s quotations, which when viewed in proper perspective shed a distinctly different light on Paul�s argument. Paul is struggling with the fact that God had made certain promises in the scriptures concerning Israel, many of which he sees as fulfilled in and through Christ. Yet Israel as a whole has not come to Christ. What does this mean for Israel, for the veracity of the Scriptures, and for Paul�s gospel? These questions dominate Paul�s mind in Romans 9-11, and his statements about election in Romans 9 must be evaluated in terms of them.
Romans 9:1 makes a clear break with what has gone on before, and yet the chapters that follow are intimately related to those that precede. Paul has demonstrated in Romans 1-8 the fallenness of all humanity (both Jew and Gentile), justification not by the �works of the law� (ergon nomou, 3:20) but rather by �faith in Jesus Christ� (pisteos Iesou Christou, 3:22), Abraham as an example of justification by faith, and the practical implications of justification by faith. Paul�s theoretical argument is rather nicely wrapped up at the end of chapter 8, except for establishing the relationship between his doctrine of justification by faith in Christ and the historic relationship God has had with ethnic Israel. Even though Paul represents justification by faith not as a novelty but as something that began with Abraham, that does not answer the question of why God had related to His people Israel primarily on the basis of their descent from Abraham and on their keeping of the Law. Scripture makes clear that the Israelites viewed themselves as relating to God on the basis of those two things (descent from Abraham: Gen. 26:24; Dt. 4:37; Matt. 3:9; Lk. 1:72-74; keeping the Law: Ex. 20:6; Lev. 26:3ff; 1 Kings 9:4-5; Neh. 1:9; Dn. 9:4; Mt. 19:17; Ac. 15:5). The Jewish people, who had not been coming in great numbers to Christ, may well argue that if Paul�s doctrine of justification by faith were true, then God would have essentially broken His promises to Israel. If Israel sees inclusion in the covenant as based on descent from Abraham and keeping the Law, then how can God turn around and say, �No, inclusion in the covenant is not based on descent from Abraham or keeping the Law, but rather on faith in Christ�? It would seem to them that God�s word had failed (v. 6), which is what Paul is at pains to dispute in Romans 9-11.
In a nutshell, Paul�s argument begins by assaulting the two assumptions that had been made concerning God�s relationship to His people. Paul�s line of argumentation in Romans 9-11 is intended to answer the specific charge that if Paul�s gospel were true, God�s word would have failed regarding Israel. Much of the traditional interpretation of this passage seems to keep this emphasis in mind only for a few verses, but in fact this charge is the primary position against which Paul is writing throughout the three chapters. It is the essential position of the �hypothetical questioner� whom Paul invokes in 9:19-20, and is implied in a number of other verses (e.g., 9:6, 16, 32). In chapter 3, Paul has already demolished the possible contention that Jews can rely on keeping the Law; however, Jews may still rely on their descent from Abraham as indicating their inclusion in the covenant community. After all, the Old Testament promises regarding the restoration of Israel are not contingent upon perfect obedience to the Law; in some ways, it appears that adherence to the Law is actually one of the promises to be fulfilled (e.g., Jer. 31:33). So if Paul says that justification is by faith in Christ, and if this standard ends up excluding the majority of Jews, who have not come to faith in Christ, then he seems to void God�s promises to Israel.
Paul�s response is simply to demonstrate that God never chose descendants of Abraham, merely as descendants of Abraham, for inclusion in the covenant community. This is clear because not all the descendants of Abraham were included, but only the descendants of Isaac, and then of Jacob. In other words, the �attrition� (if we may be permitted to call it that) that occurs with the generations of Isaac and Jacob does not stop there, but progresses throughout the descendants of Israel. It is in this sense that �not all who are descended from Israel are Israel� (9:6).
Isaac and Jacob
In verse 7 of Romans 9, Paul quotes Genesis 21:12 to explain that, even before Isaac was born, God had determined that Abraham�s offspring would be �reckoned� through Isaac�in other words, that the covenant people would pass through the line of Isaac rather than that of Ishmael. The original context of this passage, incidentally, makes it clear not only that Isaac is to be chosen, but that Ishmael is to be rejected in favor of Isaac. Yet God makes it clear that Ishmael is to be rejected by Abraham, so that the covenant line is clearly through Isaac; nevertheless, He reassures Abraham in the very next verse (Gen. 21:13) that �I will make the son of the maidservant into a nation also, because he is your offspring.� In the following verses we read that �God heard the boy [Ishmael] crying �. �I will make him into a great nation� �. God was with the boy as he grew up� (Gen. 21:17-18, 20). In other words, God has a positive plan for Ishmael and his descendants as well as for Isaac and his descendants; it is only as a member of the covenant nation that Ishmael is rejected.
Paul, significantly, interprets the quotation by stating that �it is not the natural children who are God�s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham�s offspring� (v. 8). He is subtly doing here what he does clearly in Galatians 4:21-31: he identifies ethnic Israel with the children of Hagar, as opposed to those of Sarah. Since ethnic Israel is depending on natural descent from Abraham, they are analogous to Ishmael, who was Abraham�s descendant (not to mention the firstborn) by purely natural means. The Christians, trusting that �those who believe are children of Abraham� (Gal. 3:7), are analogous to Isaac, the child of promise. In Romans 9:8, Paul quotes Genesis 18:10, 14 to establish that the promise had indeed occurred before Isaac�s conception.
Paul�s use of Isaac and Ishmael, then, is primarily intended neither to be a statement of their individual eternal election, nor to be typical of the elect and reprobate. It rather establishes that the Jewish people have no reason to trust in their descent from Abraham to guarantee their inclusion in the covenant. If they could, the descendants of Ishmael would have just as much right to claim God�s promises as could the descendants of Isaac.
Jacob and Esau
Lest the Jewish questioner argue that Isaac was the legitimate son, as opposed to the illegitimate, Paul moves down to the next generation to find an even more compelling example, that of Jacob and Esau (9:10-13). These have the same set of parents, and were even born together as twins. The only natural primacy that one would have over the other would have been the birthright, which would have gone to Esau. And yet, before they were born, Rebekah was told that �the older will serve the younger� (9:12, quoting Gen. 25:23). Paul even states that the reason God told Rebekah this was �in order that God�s purpose in election might stand� (v. 11). Surely here is clear reference to unconditional individual election.
Many Arminians have chosen at this point to insert God�s foreknowledge as the key to understanding the passage; i.e., even though this was �before the twins� had done anything good or bad� (v. 11), God still judged them on the basis of what He knew that they would later do. This clearly runs counter to the intent of the passage. Paul obviously means to exclude personal merit from consideration of Jacob and Esau�s election. Such election is �not by works, but by him who calls.� God was perfectly free to choose either Jacob or Esau, and freely chose Jacob.
However, again, the choice involves not individual election to personal salvation or damnation, but rather the line through which the covenant people will come. Genesis 25:23, from which Paul quotes, clearly refers to nations, not individuals:
Two nations are in your womb,
and two peoples from within you will be separated;
one people will be stronger than the other,
and the older will serve the younger.
Individuals or Nations?
And what is to be done with �Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated� (Rom. 9:13, quoting Mal. 1:2-3)? Again, a look at the source of the quote clearly reveals that the nations are being referenced, rather than the individuals Jacob and Esau. The point of comparison lies in the nature of the land that was given to the two nations. God had given preference to Jacob in the land that He gave to Israel. Malachi goes on to discuss the fact that Edom had come under such judgment that it would never be able to rebuild its land; but was this a foregone conclusion from before Jacob and Esau were born? It seems not to be. Deuteronomy 2:4-6 suggests quite the opposite. God did not allow the Israelites to attack Edom or to take any portion of their land, stating that �I have given Esau the hill country of Seir as his own. You are to pay them in silver for the food you eat and the water you drink.� This hardly seems consistent with a people whom God �hated.�
It seems more likely that �loved� and �hated� in Malachi 1 and Romans 9 are to be understood merely in terms of preference, as in Jesus' statement in Luke 14:26, �If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters�yes, even his own life�he cannot be my disciple.� No one could imagine that Jesus is actually calling upon his disciples to hate their families in absolute terms, but merely to choose Him in preference to their families. God had simply given preference to Jacob over Esau, in terms of the land received by their respective descendants, and in terms of whose line would comprise the covenant nation.
If one wishes to argue that �Jacob I loved but Esau I hated� must refer to election to salvation, one must grapple with the fact that this statement first appears, not in Genesis, but in Malachi. God�s point cannot be that all of Israel in Malachi�s time are saved! In fact, God indicts Israel throughout the rest of Malachi specifically because they have been unfaithful to the covenant and have broken faith with God in many ways. Rather than being a pleasant assurance of God�s favor, the statement, �Jacob I loved but Esau I hated,� forms part of God�s indictment�that even though God had favored Israel, nevertheless Israel had been unfaithful, and was therefore under judgment.
Paul uses these quotations in Romans 9 once again to oppose those Jews who would say that, if Paul�s gospel were correct, then �God�s word had failed� (9:6). His response to them is that God had never made the unconditional promises, based either on �works� or ethnicity, that they were claiming. God sovereignly chose Isaac over Ishmael; He sovereignly chose Jacob over Esau; and by implication, He can sovereignly choose on the basis of faith in Christ, as opposed to works of the law or ethnicity.
To the hypothetical Jewish questioner, of course, God�s apparent change (from law and ethnicity to faith as the criterion of election) would appear to be unjust (v. 14). Note, by the way, that the present interpretation of Paul�s argument makes perfect sense of the questioner�s sense of injustice. No Jew would see injustice in God�s gratuitous election of Isaac over Ishmael or Jacob over Esau as individuals. The only thing about the argument that would have caused them to view God as unjust is the implication that �not all who are descended from Israel are Israel� (9:6), and for Paul, of course, to be a true descendant of Abraham was to follow him in faith (4:11-12, Gal. 3:7-8).
Pharaoh
Paul buttresses his contention that his doctrine does not in fact imply injustice with God by citing Exodus 33:19, where in reference to Moses, God states
I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion. (Rom. 9:18)
Because in Romans Paul moves on to discuss the Pharaoh of the Exodus, this quote is ordinarily understood primarily to imply its negation�that God also has the right to refuse mercy and compassion on whom He wills. However, in its original context in Exodus, God does not make this statement to justify His refusal of mercy to anyone, but rather to justify his granting of Moses� request to show him His glory (Ex. 33:18). This comes in the larger context of the episode of the golden calf and of Moses� destruction of the first two tablets of the Testimony (chs. 32-33). Moses� conversation with God (33:12-20) seems to reveal genuine concern that God will abandon His people and that Moses will be left to lead them on his own. The fact that Moses had to chisel out the second set of stone tablets himself has led some interpreters to suggest that Moses wasn�t entirely guiltless in his response to the Israelites. A subsequent outburst of anger would prevent Moses from entering the Promised Land. Nonetheless, God chooses to have mercy on Moses and to allow him to see His glory. Therefore, as Paul notes in 9:16, God�s favor does not �depend on man�s desire or effort, but on God�s mercy.� Even Moses didn�t receive blessings as a result of descent from Abraham or lawkeeping. He was a recipient of God�s mercy. Those who expected God�s blessings based on ethnicity or following God�s commandments couldn�t very well exalt themselves above even Moses in that regard!
Paul then turns 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� (9:17). This is typically taken to mean that Pharaoh was raised up to a position of power specifically to be destroyed by the plagues on Egypt, and thus to mean that God can justly create people for the purpose of condemning them and thus glorify Himself. Again, an examination of the quote in its original context provides a different view:
For by now I could have stretched out my hand and struck you and your people with a plague that would have wiped you off the earth. But I have raised you up [or have spared you, NIV mg.] for this very purpose, that I might show you my power and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth. (Exodus 9:15-16)
In other words, the Lord�s point to Pharaoh was not that He was destroying Pharaoh to show His power, but that He had not yet destroyed Pharaoh, in order further to demonstrate His power. The NIV margin captures the sense perfectly�God�s power had been demonstrated precisely by sparing Pharaoh and not by destroying Egypt more quickly.[1] The larger context (vv. 13-17) places this statement in one of a number of appeals to Pharaoh to let Israel go, or else another plague would come, and specifically indicts Pharaoh on his own stubbornness in refusing to let the people go.
Therefore, when Paul in Romans 9 draws the conclusion that �God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden� (v. 18), it is typically understood that Pharaoh is Paul�s example of hardening. In fact, as the quote above demonstrates, Pharaoh is an example both of God�s mercy and of His hardening. God is merciful to Pharaoh up to a point, in that He doesn�t wipe Egypt out immediately but rather warns Pharaoh through the plagues. He also, as we know, hardens Pharaoh as well, although Pharaoh is also said to have hardened himself.
But what are we to make of God�s hardening of Pharaoh? Paul neither quotes any passage referring directly to Pharaoh�s hardening, nor gives any explanation of the hardening, although he clearly refers to it. In Exodus, the hardening of Pharaoh�s heart is expressed in four ways: the Lord prophesies ahead of time that he will harden Pharaoh�s heart (4:21, 7:3, 14:4); the hardening is expressed passively, without an expressed subject (i.e., �Pharaoh�s heart was hardened�: 7:13, 22, 8:19, 9:35); Pharaoh is said to have hardened his own heart (8:15, 32, 9:34); and the Lord hardens Pharaoh�s heart (9:12, 10:1, 20, 27, 11:10, 14:8). In general, it appears that the hardening is either expressed passively or attributed to Pharaoh early on in the plagues, and attributed more frequently to the direct action of the Lord in the later plagues. One way of looking at the hardening, therefore, is that Pharaoh incurs judgment upon himself by hardening his own heart early on, and was thereafter hardened by the Lord, in order to demonstrate the Lord�s power better. The Lord, of course, knew that this would happen, and foretold to Moses that fact.
Another way of looking at the hardening is to recognize various types of causation. What the Lord actually does is confront Pharaoh through Moses and send the plagues. What Pharaoh does is respond by refusing Moses� demand; in other words, by hardening his heart. Pharaoh therefore hardens his own heart, in the sense that he chooses that response; the Lord hardens Pharaoh�s heart, in the sense that He provides the impetus for Pharaoh to respond as he does. In the same way, we all may say that a person angered us, but in fact that person merely provided the impetus for us to become angry; we were the ones who responded in anger.
At any rate, no one imagines that God forced Pharaoh to harden his heart despite himself; in other words, that God made Pharaoh harden his heart when he otherwise would not have done so. Everyone agrees that Pharaoh was himself culpable for the hardening, regardless of whether it was predestined or not. The fact that God �hardens whom he wills� does not obviate the fact that those whom He hardens, also harden themselves. In other words, we are told that God �hardens whom he wills,� but not told on what basis he chooses to harden some and not others.
This discussion of Pharaoh�s hardening becomes relevant in the interpretation of Romans 9 when we examine the following verse: �One of you will say to me, �Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?� (v. 19). Typically, the understanding of this verse is to see Pharaoh, as typical of the non-elect, having been hardened by the Lord, nonetheless blamed by God, and to see the hypothetical questioner questioning the justice of this situation. �How can God blame Pharaoh,� the questioner asks, �or by extension, any of the non-elect, when He Himself has predestined their response?� Thus, the typical interpretation views the questioner as mirroring precisely the Arminian position. (e.g., Calvin, Institutes 3.22.8)
This interpretation, however, makes the hypothetical questioner identify too strongly with Pharaoh. (NIV recognizes this problem by making the object of the Lord�s blame �us,� although the Greek provides no such referent.) The questioner has no interest in whether God has dealt justly with Pharaoh! He sees, rather, the point that Paul is making with regard to ethnic Israel. God is not unjust (v. 14) in choosing Gentiles who have faith, as opposed to Jews who try to keep the Law, because God �has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and hardens whom he wants to harden� (v. 18). If God wants to have mercy on those who come to Him in faith, and harden those who do not, regardless of their ethnicity or relative adherence to the Law, that is His business. Paul�s point regarding Pharaoh is not that God had mercy on Moses and reprobated Pharaoh, which would easily fall in line with the Jewish self-understanding; his point is that God has the right sovereignly to set the criteria on which he will have mercy or harden.
The Potter and the Clay
So, the questioner asks, �Why does God still blame us?� It has always been the contention of Reformed interpreters that if Arminians were right, the obvious response to the questioner should be that the questioner should use his free will to come to God in faith; if he does so, he will not be condemned. However, this misunderstands the question. The questioner is not asking why Pharaoh or the Jews cannot come to God in faith; the questioner is asking why faith in Christ should be necessary. That is, how can God blame the Jew for expecting to be among the chosen people because he�s a Jew�in other words, because he�s descended from Abraham and because he�s kept (in a relative sense) the Law? How can God blame the Jews for failing to come to faith in Christ, since faith was not what the Jews were led to expect to be the criterion of election?
It may be responded that neither the Jew/Gentile question nor faith are in the immediate context. One must remember that justification by faith forms a major crux of Paul�s argument throughout Romans 1-8, and that Romans 9-11 forms an extended answer to the question of what this doctrine means for ethnic Jews. Paul is defending his thesis that God�s word had not failed, in that not everyone descended from Israel constitutes the Israel of God (9:6). Paul explicitly draws this conclusion from his argument in 9:30-32. It is only by divorcing vv. 10-24 from the surrounding context that this passage has been interpreted primarily in terms of unconditional individual election.
Paul therefore responds to his questioner, �Who are you, O man, to talk back to God?� (9:20). If the question in v. 19 means, �Why are the reprobate judged for not having come to faith?� the answer continues to seem unsatisfying. But if the question means, �Why should God�s chosen people�Israel�have to come to faith in Christ?� then the answer makes quite a bit of sense. It is not up to us to determine God�s criteria of inclusion in the covenant community.
Paul then paraphrases a portion of Isaiah 29:16 in support of his rebuff of the questioner. �Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, �Why did you make me like this?�� (9:20). The section from Isaiah from which it is taken is worthy of quoting:
The Lord says:
�These people come near to me with their mouth
and honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
Their worship of me
is made up only of rules taught by men.
Therefore once more I will astound these people
with wonder upon wonder;
The wisdom of the wise will perish,
the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish.�
Woe to those who go to great depths
to hide their plans from the LORD,
Who do their work in darkness and think,
�Who sees us? Who will know?�
You turn things upside down,
as if the potter were thought to be like the clay!
Shall what is formed say to him who formed it,
�He did not make me�?
Can the pot say of the potter,
�He knows nothing�? (Is. 29:13-16)
This clearly refers to people whose worship of God is mere pretense, and who think that they can plan and do evil without the Lord�s knowledge or interference. Not only this passage, which is directly quoted (in part), but in fact the OT passages in which this type of potter-clay illustration is used (Isa. 45:1-13; 64:4-8; Jer. 18:1-10) all refer to people who are under judgment for their own false worship and disregard of God and His Law, and either imply or specifically offer restoration to those who repent (e.g., Isa. 29:17-19; 45:14, 22; 64:9-12). Jeremiah 18:6-10 clearly indicates that the �clay� is not merely passive:
�O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter does?� declares the Lord. �Like clay in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel. If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it.�
God has sovereignly chosen what he will do regarding the clay, in that he has chosen to respond to the clay according to its repentance or lack of repentance. By quoting the potter/clay metaphor in Romans 9:20, Paul essentially tells the Jews that God will deal with them based on their repentance�as he has always said he would deal with them. The �clay� in this quotation is not the non-elect; it is Israel, which does not feel it needs to come to Christ. The questioner who believes that Israel should be saved because of its ethnic descent is reminded that repentance has always been required for God�s salvation�even of the Jew. The image is that of the clay blaming its position on the potter, rather than humbly asking to be made anew.
Paul goes on to ask, �Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?� The offense here is precisely that Israel, which would have thought of itself as the �pottery for noble purposes� in comparison with the gentiles, is being placed in the position of being the pottery �for common use.� Significantly, in 2 Timothy 2:20-21, Paul indicates that a person�s choices determine to what kind of uses he will be put:In a large house there are articles not only of gold and silver, but also of wood and clay; some are for noble purposes and some for ignoble. If a man cleanses himself from the latter, he will be an instrument for noble purposes, made holy, useful to the Master and prepared to do any good work.
Objects of Wrath and Mercy
To suggest that the purpose of the pottery is determined and unalterable from God�s point of view flies in the face of the way this imagery is used in the rest of scripture.�What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath�prepared for destruction?� (Rom. 9:22). Again, it is usually assumed here that the �objects of his wrath� are the non-elect, as represented by Pharaoh, Ishmael, and Esau. But in the larger context of chapters 9 through 11, Paul�s main concern is the Jews who have not come to Christ. The �objects of his wrath,� then, are the majority of the Israelite nation. The patience with which God has borne them reflects his desire for their repentance (2:4). Nonetheless, as long as they remain objects of his wrath through their refusal to repent, they are prepared for destruction. �Prepared for destruction� echoes Proverbs 16:4, �The Lord works out everything for his own ends�even the wicked for a day of disaster.� But �the wicked� are not necessarily a static category: God�s desire for them is that they �turn and live� (Ezek. 18:23, 30-32).
�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� (Rom. 9:23). One of the reasons that God bears with the wicked�even those whom he knows beforehand will not repent�is to make �the riches of his glory known.� It may reasonably be asked how God�s forbearance actually accomplishes this. One can easily understand how God�s judgment would accomplish this, by demonstrating to the �objects of his mercy� the righteous judgment from which they have been rescued. But this does not explain how God�s forbearance from immediate judgment accomplishes this. Perhaps it simply exalts God�s sovereign majesty�he does not need to panic and �do something� about the wicked: their end is assured. But it seems more reasonable to recognize that the �objects of his mercy� were at one point �objects of his wrath� (cf. Eph. 2:3) but escaped that wrath through repentance and faith. For them, certainly, God�s �riches of his glory� are truly revealed, because they recognize that only through God�s forbearance during their former life of rebellion did they receive any hope of salvation. Thus, the categories, �objects of his mercy� and �objects of his wrath,� are dynamic categories, not static. The inclusion of an individual in either is based on that individual�s own response to the offer of grace.[2]
In the next verse, Paul becomes more explicit in his identification of the �objects of his mercy.� They are �us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles� (9:24). Here Paul explicitly comes back to his original theme (vv. 1-6), lending support to the idea that he has never really departed from it. The offense to the Jews is that God is now openly calling people from among the Gentiles, as well as those from among the Jews who have accepted Christ in faith. Paul buttresses his comments from more Old Testament quotations. He cites Hosea 2:23 and 1:10 to the effect that those who were previously not included in the covenant nation will be included among those whom he calls �my people.� Moreover, he cites Isaiah 10:22-23 and 1:9 to the effect that those who are saved among Israel will be merely a �remnant.�
In other words, to those Jews who counted on ethnicity and adherence to the Law for their inclusion among God�s people, Paul demonstrates from the Hebrew scriptures themselves that they had no reason to count on that. Therefore he sums up his own argument in vv. 30-32. �The Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it.� In what way? �By faith.� Paul makes clear that this is the criterion, this is the issue: Gentiles are coming to righteousness by faith. Israel, meanwhile, �pursued a law of righteousness�. not by faith, but as if it were by works.� The issue is not that God has sovereignly elected only a few Jews but many Gentiles; the issue is that Israel rejects faith as the defining characteristic of the covenant people, in favor of continuing to trust in Law. Thus, God�s gracious gift of salvation through faith in Christ is a stumbling stone to those who will not believe, but �one who trusts in him will not be ashamed� (v. 33; cf. Isa. 8:14, 28:16).
Conclusion
So, to sum up, according to the Augustinian/Calvinist interpretation, which assumes faith in Christ for salvation and arises in opposition to Pelagianism and later the medieval Catholic church:
�Paul begins by agonizing over the failure of Israel to come to salvation through faith in Christ (9:1-5).
�Paul�s solution is that not all of Israel is Israel; i.e., not all of Israel is elect (v. 6).
�Paul demonstrates God�s prerogative to elect whomever he wills by having elected Isaac over Ishmael and Jacob over Esau (vv. 7-13).
�God has mercy only on those whom he chooses to have mercy, and hardens the rest, as exemplified by Pharaoh (vv. 14-18).
�At this point, Paul hypothesizes a questioner who articulates the Arminian contention: if God has chosen to harden someone like Pharaoh, how can God then judge him for what he was predestined to do (v. 19)? Paul rebukes the questioner for impiety, and uses the potter-clay illustration to reiterate that God has the right to elect some and reprobate some as he deems fit (vv. 20-21).
�Paul then adds, as a supporting argument, the fact that when God chooses to reprobate someone like Pharaoh, he has to bear patiently their sin and arrogance, but does so, in order to demonstrate his glory to his elect, which turn out to be among the Gentiles as well as among the Jews (vv. 22-24).
�He thus brings the discussion back to the issue of Jewish unbelief in Christ, from which his discussion of election has been an excursus.
From that point, the rest of the chapter is interpreted with regard to the Jew-Gentile question and salvation by faith, as opposed to works, without explicit reference to election (vv. 25-33).
The present interpretation that I have given recognizes the significant paradigm shift that takes place in the first century with regard to the identity of the people of God. It contrasts with the traditional one chiefly in terms of keeping the dominant issues of the Jews and of salvation by faith in mind throughout.
�It begins, as before, with Paul agonizing over the failure of Israel to come to faith in Christ (vv. 1-5).
�He has to confront the Jewish objection that, if his gospel were correct, it would mean that God�s promises to the Jews had failed. His response is that God�s promises have not failed, but others are inheriting the promises, because not all of Israel is Israel: i.e., not all of Israel has followed Abraham in faith (v. 6).
�Ethnic descent from Abraham is not enough to be considered �Abraham�s children,� as the examples of Ishmael and Esau demonstrate; Israel has already been granted unmerited blessings as compared with other descendants of Abraham (vv. 7-13).
�Therefore God is not unjust if he now excludes those descendants of Jacob who do not come to faith, because anyone he blesses, even Moses, is a recipient of his mercy (vv. 14-16). God may choose to spare for a time even someone like Pharaoh, whom God has chosen to harden�knowing that he will harden himself in response to God�s challenge�in order for God to glorify himself through that person, who can be viewed as both an example of God�s mercy and hardening (vv. 17-18).
�The implication is therefore that the Jews have been given mercy in the past but are not guaranteed mercy in the future if they do not come to faith in Christ. The hypothetical questioner asks why God still blames the Jews, if He has hardened them (v. 19), refusing to recognize that the Jews are hardened just as Pharaoh was hardened, by their own stubborn refusal to repent. Paul therefore rebukes them, and uses the potter-clay illustration to point out that God has always dealt with Israel on the basis of its repentance, and it is only those who refuse to repent who argue back to God that he made them as they are (vv. 20-21).
�Paul then points out that God has to bear patiently the �objects of his wrath��the unbelieving�in order to make his glory known to the �objects of his mercy��those who come to faith, which he specifically identifies as having come not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles (vv. 22-24). The supporting quotations from Hosea and Isaiah make clear the point: that many of those whom the Jews had considered excluded from the covenant (the Gentiles) would in the end be included, while many whom the Jews had considered included in the covenant (themselves) would be excluded (vv. 25-29).
�The basis upon which Gentiles have been included and Jews excluded is made explicit in vv. 30-33: it is that the Gentiles are obtaining righteousness through faith, while the Jews have pursued it by works.
Pros and Cons
It may be argued against this interpretation that the traditional one reads more simply from the text in Romans, and that it does not interject issues of ethnic Judaism or justification by faith, neither of which are clearly referenced in the central passage (vv. 14-23). To this, it may be responded that the traditional interpretation may read more simply by virtue of one�s familiarity with it, and because it assumes certain interpretations of the OT quotations which are simple but are demonstrably false, once the contexts are understood. The issue of ethnic Judaism dominates chs. 9-11, and thus can safely be assumed in a short passage that doesn�t reference it explicitly; while justification by faith is the dominant theme of the book of Romans as a whole, and it is the Israelite rejection of justification by faith that provokes the present discussion. On the other hand, the traditional interpretation reads into the text the assumption of unconditional individual election, which is a debatable doctrine, certainly not a major theme of Romans 1-8, and not followed up as a theme in Romans 9:25ff.
In essence, Paul is telling ethnic Israel something very close to what Reformed interpreters see. He is telling them that God has the right to choose whomever he wills to be among his covenant people. But he is not telling them this because God has chosen not to elect most of them. He�s telling them this because the paradigm for inclusion in the covenant people has shifted, from national Israel following the Law to anyone who comes to faith in Christ. Israel feels betrayed by this paradigm shift, so Paul explains that God has no obligation to the physical descendents of Abraham; rather, Paul demonstrates from the Old Testament that his relationship to Israel has always depended upon repentance.
[1] Supported by LXX dietarathas, kept or preserved. Paul�s translation in Rom. 9:17 uses exegeiro, to raise up, but in the sense of arousal from sleep or being stirred up or incited. It does not mean �raised into a position of power.� The only other occurrence of this word in the NT is 1 Cor. 6:14, in which it refers to the resurrection of the believer.
[2] Of course, all this begs the question of whether and how the reprobate are enabled to come to faith in Christ. If they are not, apart from the application of irresistible grace to the elect alone, then the Calvinist position holds, even with the interpretation here presented for Romans 9. A detailed discussion of the relevant passage from Ephesians 2 is outside the purview of this study; however, it is arguable that the first two chapters of Ephesians also deal with the relationship between Jews and Gentiles, as is made clear in the rest of that book, and that Paul�s point in Ephesians 2 is to identify Jewish believers (�we also,� Eph. 2:1) with Gentile believers (those being addressed) in their common experience of being �dead in trespasses and sins� before conversion, without specific reference to how their conversion was enabled.
ishmael was the child of flesh issac was child of faith
essau was child of flesh jacob child of faith
this is the difference essau I have hated, pertains to the unsaved
jacob I have loved jacob is the saved
also hated doesnt mean he actuly hateed anyone Hate is the sin of murder according to the new testiment and we all know God cnt sin
the word hate translated means loved les or is not prefered
the one that is loved is merely prefferd to the one that it says was hgated
this argumnet is obserd of cores ther has to be more to it than just God hates some and loves so will nilly, God doesnt vreate people specifical;y to hate them
But He knows and has known from the beginng of time (forknew) who would accept salvation and not reject it, and those are the ones that are chosen the ones he forknew he chose them (predestinated) DUH!
I am sick of this argument holding out for home maybe onthis forum for you its new but I am burnt out on it
there is no way to discuss it based on scripture becasue you think scripture says one thing I thi k it says nothing else
IT would take a proud diluted man indeed to think that they could really gain any ground with anyone one on his subject, its like laying tug of war only yhte rope wont move
its been argued for years yall CANT PROVE WE ARE WRONG
on the other habd WE CANT PROVE YALL ARE WROG
so a debate onthis subject is stupid and pointless
this is not the original areticle I posted before I cant find it but this one is good too!
anyway your (calvinists) not gonna change my mind just like I wont change yours thats why I say whats it matter really lets let the lord work this out its too much to keep debating this subject
Donna that God is not the father of the lord Jesus Christ, it is the father of light that giveth light, illumination of scripture and he knows he does not hate any man.
I will give you another interpretation. Readers then can determine for themselves which one stands. They will see which one is bent on changing the meaning because they don't like the outcome and which one let's the word speak for itself.
God's Purpose According To Election: Paul's Argument in Romans 9
Steven M. Baugh
The doctrine of predestination has fallen on hard times. Not that it was ever very popular. Given today's theological climate, most Christians probably think that predestination � to the extent that they think about it at all � is an abstract, philosophical notion invented by a few cranks in the past.1 In reality, though, most of the famous adherents of the biblical doctrine of predestination, besides not being cranks, held to this belief because they were convinced that the Bible clearly teaches it.2
And though there are many places where predestination is explicitly or implicitly taught, it is most clearly and definitively taught in chapter nine of Paul's Epistle to the Romans. There are other places we could examine in the New Testament where human actions related to redemptive events were predestined by God in such a marvelous way that human responsible liberty was preserved (Acts 2:23, 4:28; and 1 Cor. 2:7).3 We should note, however, that these are events, not people. Paul repeatedly says that believers themselves are such only because they were predestined to this grace as God's gift (Rom. 8:29-30; Eph. 1:5, 11). This only follows since we are expressly taught that both faith and repentance originate from God, not from ourselves (Eph. 2:8-9; Phil. 1:29; 2 Thess. 2:11; 2 Tim. 2:25; cf. Heb. 12:17).4
But Romans 9 has brought more than one reader to his knees before our awesome God who 'does as he pleases with the powers of heaven and the peoples of the earth' (Dan. 4:35). This passage teaches divine election and predestination of individuals to salvation, and the hardening of whom God wills, as candidly as anything is ever taught in the Bible, despite the resolute and persistent efforts of many to obviate it.5
Happily, though, persistent readings of this lofty section of Scripture have brought many people to finally accept its teaching. Let one striking example illustrate. After quoting Romans 9:11-13, one prominent theological writer wrote this early in his career:
This moves some people to think that the apostle Paul had done away with the freedom of the will, by which we earn the esteem of God by the good of piety, or offend him by the evil of impiety. For, these people say, God loved the one and hated the other before either was even born and could have done either good or evil. But we answer that God did this by his foreknowledge, by which he knows the character even of the unborn� Therefore God did not elect anyone's works (which God himself will grant) by foreknowledge, but rather by foreknowledge he chose faith, so that he chooses precisely him whom he foreknew would believe in him; and to him he gives the Holy Spirit, so that by doing good works he will as well attain eternal life.6
This position is the same as that of Pelagius, the great opponent of predestination.7 And yet, the same author just quoted reexamined Romans a few years later at the request of a friend and totally reversed himself to embrace Paul's teaching on predestination. He even argues against his earlier position, when he says:
If election is by foreknowledge, and God foreknew Jacob's faith, how do you prove that he did not elect him for his works? Neither Jacob nor Esau had believed, because they were not yet born and had as yet done neither good nor evil. But God foresaw that Jacob would believe? He could equally well have foreseen that he would do good works. So just as one says he was elected because God foreknew that he was going to believe, another might say that it was rather because of the good works he was to perform, since God foreknew them equally well� If the reason for its not being of works was that they were not yet born, that applies also to faith; for before they were born they had neither faith nor works. The apostle, therefore, did not want us to understand that it was because of God's foreknowledge that the younger was elected to be served by the elder.8
Subsequently, this author held firmly to predestination for the rest of his long and distinguished career. In fact, many people regard him as one of the greatest theologians in Christianity's history: Augustine of Hippo.
This brief digression into the history of interpretation illustrates just one point. I will ask you, the reader, to reconsider Romans 9, as did Augustine � no matter how you have understood it in the past � and to carefully follow the Apostle Paul's train of thought. You will find it one of the more awesome chapters in Scripture. We will look specifically at Rom. 9:1-29 in this brief survey and refer to this section simply as 'Romans 9.'9
The Context
Chapters 9-11 are normally seen as a distinct unit in Romans. Some people think of this section as a disconnected appendage to the rest of the book. But careful reflection shows that Romans 9-11 answers some key questions which Paul had raised earlier, especially in Romans 3 about God's faithfulness to his promises to the Jews.10 This comes into view when we notice that Rom. 9:6 is really the key question and answer Paul develops throughout Romans 9-11: 'It is not as though God's word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel' (NIV).
The implicit question in Romans 9:6a is: 'Has God broken his promise to Israel?' Paul's argument in Romans up to chapter 9 may seem to have led to this conclusion. Israel was the seed of Abraham and heirs of God's oath-bound covenant of grace (Gen. 15; Ex. 2:23-25; Psalm 105:8-10; Luke 1:72-73; etc.). Yet the Israelites are under judgment, and their circumcision and possession of the Law is of no profit whatsoever if they are found to be transgressors (Rom. 2:17-29); and all universally, both Jew and Gentile, are under the cruel and relentless dominion of sin (Rom. 3:9-18; Rom. 5:18-20). Has God then thoroughly annulled his covenantal commitment to Israel? Will he now eradicate them (Rom. 11:1)? Paul's answers to these urgent questions are what Romans 9-11 explains. And his answers take us deep into the divine purpose.
Romans 9
The structure of Romans 9:1-29 is fairly straightforward. The main sections are: 1) Paul's grief for national Israel (v. 1-5); 2) Thesis and main issue: saving grace depends upon predestination (v. 6-13); 3) Answer to objection that predestination makes God unjust (v. 14-18); and 4) Answer to objection that predestination removes responsibility (v. 19-29). This outline accounts for the main contours of the passage, but its glory lay in the details.
Paul begins in Romans 9:1-3 by heading off a possible misperception of his rigorous defense of the inclusion of the Gentiles into full covenantal citizenship by faith alone (cf. Eph. 2:12). Specifically, he vehemently denies that his theology is driven by hatred of his countrymen (even though he expected immanent grief from them [Rom. 15:31]). Paul denies any anti-Semitism on his part by affirming most vigorously his own grief for them (9:2), his testimony on their behalf for religious zeal (10:2), and his warning that the Gentile must not despise the stock to which he has been ingrafted (11:18, 20). To these things, the apostle gives the most solemn testimony, sealed on his own eternal destiny (9:1, 3). We must gather from this grave affirmation that the issues in Romans 9 are weighty.
Paul does not acknowledge the value of Israelite citizenship out of mere sentiment. He is avowing Israel's privileged status in God's redemptive program: 'Salvation is of the Jews' (John 4:22). Israel was entrusted with God's oracles; to her belongs the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the Law, the priestly service, and the promises (3:2, 9:4). Israel not only has the patriarchs, but in an act of unspeakable condescension, the incarnate Son of God himself deigned to be born as a son of Abraham (9:5), not as the son of any other tribe. Thus through the vast stretches of eternity Abraham will be known as the father of all the sons and daughters of God (Rom. 4:11; Gal. 3:29). Jesus by his incarnation as the great Seed of Abraham and as the Root and Branch of Jesse has sanctified that holy Israelite rootstock (Rom. 11:16, 15:12; cf. Gal. 3:16; Rev. 5:5; Heb. 10:29).
National Versus Eternal Benefits
When Paul accepts the privileged status of Israel as a national, covenantal entity, he is accepting the primary tenet of his theological antagonists. But they mistakenly equated membership in national Israel with inheritance of the eternal benefits of the covenant.11 For Paul, Israelite privileged status is a biblical teaching which must be qualified by other truths. Specifically, Paul sees that membership in theocratic Israel with its national benefits does not guarantee membership in elect Israel whose benefits are righteousness, salvation, and eternal life.12 This is the point of his thematic statement in Romans 9:6: 'They are not all Israel who are of Israel'; i.e., elect Israel and national Israel are not coextensive. Put another way, sonship in the Abrahamic line does not guarantee that one is a child of God (9:8).
This is not merely a squabble about national privilege. Paul argues at the profoundest theological level that his opponents' position is a refusal to accept God's terms for righteousness. It rejects Jesus Christ, whom God has put forward as our great substitute and Covenant Head (Rom. 5:12-21), our very righteousness (Rom. 10:4; 1 Cor. 1:30; 2 Cor. 5:21; Phil. 3:9; Titus 3:4-7). Their refusal to submit to God's righteousness (Rom. 10:3) brings personal obligation to fulfill all the terms of the Law (Gal. 5:3), and a personal liability with disastrous results: guilt and the just wrath of God (Rom. 3:9-20, 23). God's strict fairness is the basis for his thorough judgment of all hidden matters (Rom. 2:11, 16). So Israel has stumbled over the Rock of offense (Rom. 9:31-33).
The Answer of Romans 9
This leads us into the great issue of Romans 9. If privileged Israel has betrayed the true import of her inheritance through unbelief and disobedience, has God's whole redemptive program failed? Has his promise to make Israel the light to the Gentiles and the channel for the Abrahamic blessing failed? (Rom. 9:6a).
Paul's answer to buttress his thesis statement in Rom. 9:6b ('They are not all Israel who are of Israel') is as direct as it is profound: God has not betrayed his redemptive program, because membership in elect Israel has always depended solely upon God's personal selection of individuals. He has not rejected the Jews en masse, as evidenced by Paul's own election and by God's remnant strategy in the Old Testament (Rom. 11:1-10). The eternal benefits of God's covenant of grace have always been guaranteed only to those upon whom God has from eternity chosen to show mercy (9:15). Jacob, not Esau, was the heir of the promise. And this promise cannot be broken, because all of God's promises are fulfilled in Christ Jesus in whom all elect Israelites, whether Jew or Gentile, become children of promise (Rom. 9:8; Gal. 3:29; 2 Cor. 1:20).
Paul does not merely assert the spiritual character of belonging to Israel with personal faith as its requirement in Romans 9. If that were the case, Paul would have launched into a quite different direction here. He would have said, for instance, that circumcision is a matter of the heart, not of the flesh, a thread of biblical teaching stretching far back into the Old Testament and one he had already stated in Romans (Rom. 2:28-29; Deut. 10:16, 30:6; Jer. 4:4, 9:26). Instead, Paul is addressing a more fundamental issue: why don't all ethnic Israelites believe and thereby partake in the eternal inheritance?
Paul's answer to this deeper question pours out in a staccato stream in Romans 9:10-13. One believes only because God so chooses. The root of all God's benefits is his own predestinating free will. It is eminently true that God foreknows the faith and the works of all people from before the world's foundation, but that does not enter at all into God's consideration for election (see Augustine's insights above). Salvation does not ultimately depend on any human factor, whether good or bad deeds (v. 11), the human will or course of life ('running') (v. 16), but only upon the God who shows mercy (v. 16). This 'in order that God's purpose according to election might prevail' (v. 11).
The rest of Paul's statements in Romans 9, particularly his interpretation of the Old Testament material, buttress this idea of predestination. The choice of Isaac over Ishmael (9:7-9), the choice of Jacob over Esau before either had done anything good or evil (9:10-13), the hardening of Pharaoh (9:17-18), all serve to confirm the basic, underlying point: God has mercy on whom he wishes and rejects whom he wishes because he so wills (9:15, 18).
But, you may say, 'This is unfair!' Paul anticipates that objection by denying even the possibility of that scruple and by reasserting God's essential and necessary justice even to the extent of saying that God hardens whom he wishes (9:14-18). 'Shall not the Judge of all the earth execute justice?' (Gen. 18:25; cf. Rom. 3:5-6).
But you may then respond, this doctrine of predestination takes away human responsibility! Paul also anticipates this objection with the only possible answer there is: God does not answer to us or to any other human standard of justice for his actions (Rom. 9:19-29). Just who are you, O man, who speaks thus with God (v. 20)! Does he not hold the rights to us as our sovereign Creator? But Paul does not stop there, for he reveals that God's predestination of 'vessels of wrath' and of 'vessels of mercy' serves to magnify his grace upon the vessels 'which he has prepared beforehand for mercy' (9:23-24). This shows that God's choice is not absolutely arbitrary. Yet this predestinating choice is based upon his own reasons, and he takes no creature into his fathomless and inscrutable counsel at this point (Rom. 11:33-36).
Objections
Assuredly, not everyone reads Romans 9 in this way. However, the other views cannot endure more than casual scrutiny. Two popular anti-predestinarian interpretations are:
[B]1. Paul is simply addressing the historical destiny of Israel in its redemptive role in Romans 9, not the eternal destinies of individuals; and
2. Paul is pointing to corporate election of the Church, not to God's choice of individuals.
The remarkable thing about both these positions is their similarity with notions that Paul here refutes. While he acknowledges the privileges of corporate election, Paul says that this election and its benefits (Rom. 3:2, 9:4-5) do not guarantee citizenship in Israel, i.e., elect Israel who holds inheritance to the eternal promises (Rom. 9:6-9). And both Israel and Jacob are individuals illustrating individual election, not corporate. Paul drives at this deeper level throughout Romans 9-11, and refuses to stop at the level of the corporate or of the redemptive role. And, again, for Paul to put his eternal destiny on the line for the redemptive role of a group as he does in 9:1-3 trivializes the great issues at stake in his Gospel.13
Another attempt to modify Paul's teaching on predestination in Romans 9 is a little more subtle. In a handbook on principles of biblical interpretation (of all places!) while discussing the potential value of rhetorical criticism, Grant Osborne rather cautiously advances this line of interpretation:
[If] the predestinarian passages of Romans 9 are part of a diatribe against Jewish-Christian misunderstandings regarding the nature of God (due to the divine judgment against Israel), this may mean that the statements regarding divine election there do not comprise dogmatic assertions regarding the process by which God saves people (the traditional Calvinist interpretation) but may instead comprise metaphors describing one aspect of the process (that is, God's sovereign choice [the emphasis in Romans 9] working with the individual's decision [the emphasis elsewhere]). Paul would be stressing one aspect of a larger whole to make his point.14
It may not be quite clear from this quote, but the position is pretty well known from other places. Paul is thought to be using the ancient rhetorical mode known as a 'diatribe' to advance his case in Romans 9 (and throughout Romans and other of his works). This method is known particularly by its use of an opponent (called an 'interlocutor') in a sort of dialogue to head off potential objections to one's position.15 What is curious about Osborne's argument is that he says, in effect, Paul's use of the diatribe style forces him to present his position in an unbalanced fashion. Paul emphasizes God's sovereign choice at the expense of absolute human freedom � 'the emphasis elsewhere' according to Osborne, though he does not say where.16
Osborne's argument is curious because he evaluates the effect of the diatribe style in just the opposite direction of how it should logically be understood. Osborne thinks that Paul's use of this form boxes him into a theological corner and thereby skews his teaching a little. However, just the opposite is true. By using this imaginary interlocutor to address potential objections (such as the anti-predestinarian notion of 'free will' � see Rom. 9:19 again!), Paul produces a balanced view of his position, which takes into consideration potential objections. Rather than narrowing Paul's position, his 'diatribe' guarantees he has considered and addressed the key qualifications for his detailed teaching on predestination.[/B]
Conclusion
Romans 9 (and Romans 10-11) does teach quite clearly and in fair detail the biblical doctrine of predestination defended so ably by Augustine and many of his theological successors. Calvin properly warns us against approaching this awesome element of biblical teaching with undue curiosity to answer questions God does not answer, but he also warns against failing to accept teaching about the marvelous character of God's inscrutable wisdom and sovereignty. This is certainly how Paul ends this section, as he wonders: 'Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out!' (Rom. 11:33; NIV).
Notes
1. Some New Testament scholars are content to charge predestination with being 'abstract' or 'philosophical,' as though this disqualifies it from being true. For example, Johannes Munck, writes: 'It is clear that this passage [Romans 9:22-24] does not put forward a philosophical doctrine of predestination. As elsewhere in the New Testament, God is portrayed too 'anthropomorphically' to make possible a view of predestination with an abstract concept of the deity as its subject.' Christ & Israel: An Interpretation of Romans 9-11 (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1967), 70; emphasis added. Likewise N. T. Wright says: 'In some older treatments, it [Romans 9-11] was regarded as a doctrinal section dealing with the abstract doctrine of predestination; but this would find few advocates today.' The Clima x of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 232; emphasis added.
2. See, for example, John Calvin, Institutes, 3.21.1-4.
3. In the Old Testament we read: 'The mind of man plans his way, but the Lord directs his steps' (Prov. 16:9; cf. 16:1, 19:21, 20:24; Gen. 45:5, 7, 50:20).
4. Ephesians 2:8-9 is particularly clear (in Greek if not in translation) that grace, faith, and salvation all originate as a gift from God. See also the remarkable statement in the Old Testament that the sons of Eli did not heed their father's rebuke and repent of their sins, 'because it was the Lord's pleasure to put them to death' (1 Sam. 2:25; cf. Josh. 11:20).
5. One author says that the history of interpretation of Romans 9 is nothing but 'the history of attempts to escape this clear observation [of double predestination].' G. Maier quoted by John Piper, The Justification of God: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Romans 9:1-23 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983), 39.
6. Augustine of Hippo, translated and edited by Paula Fredriksen Landes, Augustine on Romans (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982), 30-33.
7. For instance, see Pelagius' comments on Romans 9:12: "Not because of works, but because of the one who calls, was it said, 'The elder shall serve the younger.' God's foreknowledge does [not] prejudge the sinner, if he is willing to repent' (Translated by Theodore de Bruyn, Pelagius's Commentary on St Paul's Epistle to the Romans [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993], 117).
8. Augustine, ad Simplicianum 2.5; J. H. S. Burleigh, translation, Augustine: Earlier Writings (LCC; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1953), 389-90. Emphasis added.
9. This is frequently done in our literature, since Rom. 9:30-33 belongs more with the material in Romans 10.
10. See, for instance, N. T. Wright, Clima x of the Covenant, (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992) 234-35.
11. The theology of Paul's opponents is a vexing question in New Testament scholarship. However, that Jews sometimes presumed on their connection with Abraham is evident from Matt. 3:9 (parallel Luke 3:8), John 8:33-40, and Rom. 2:17-24. Compare Luke 13:16, 19:9; Rom. 4:1, 12; and Gal. 3:7.
12. It is fair to say 'salvation,' as this is the great theme of Romans 9-11. The words that refer to salvation or deliverance occur more often in chapters 9-11 than elsewhere in Romans. Specifically, these words are the noun, soteria ('salvation'), and verbs, sozo ('I save') and rhuomai ('I deliver'); the places are: Rom. 9:27, 10:1, 9, 10, 13, 11:11, 14, and 26 (twice). The other places where these words occur in Romans are 1:16, 5:9, 10, 7:24, 8:24, 13:11, and 15:31.
13. See the recent critique of these two interpretations of Romans 9 by Thomas R. Schreiner, 'Does Romans 9 Teach Individual Election unto Salvation,' in The Grace of God, The Bondage of the Will: Biblical and Practical Perspectives on Calvinism, Vol. 1 (T. Schreiner and B. Ware, eds. [Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1995], 89-106).
14. Grant R. Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1991), 125.
15. Eduard Norden in his classic work on ancient Greek and Latin prose literature says, 'The diatribe is none other than a converted [Platonic] dialogue in the form of a [school] declamation.' E. Norden, Die Antike Kunstprosa, 2d ed., vol. 1 (Leipzig and Berlin: B. G. Teubner, 1909), 129.
16. Calvinism does not deny human 'natural liberty'; however this is not a factor at the ultimate level of God's free choice. No passage of Scripture either explicitly or implicitly teaches that the human will exists with the ability to withstand God's own purposes or to direct his actions. I invite you to search for yourself. Instead, you find just the opposite as in our passage: 'You will say to me, then, why does [God] still find fault? Who can resist his will?' (Rom. 9:19). The word translated 'resist' in Rom. 9:19 is the opposite of 'submit' (so James 4:7) and synonymous with 'oppose' or 'contradict' (Luke 21:15; cf. Rom. 10:21).
Author
Dr. Steven M. Baugh (Ph.D., University of California, Irvine) is associate professor of New Testament at Westminster Theological Seminary in California, and the author of A New Testament Greek Primer (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1995).
PJ, your problem is that you define God as only love when there are many attributes given to him by scripture.
Does God Love The Sinner and Hate Only His Sin?
Dr. John H. Gerstner
�Repent or Perish� forces people to ponder seriously the popular slogan, �God hates the sin and loves the sinner.� Is a necessary repentance consistent with �God loves the sinner?� If God loves the sinner while he is alive, it is strange that God sends him to hell as soon as he dies. God loves the sinner to death? Loves him to everlasting torment?
There is something wrong here. Either God loves the sinner and will not send him into the furnace of His eternal wrath; or He sends him into His eternal wrath and does not love him. Either �you are going to hell unless� because God hates you, as you are. Or, God loves you and �you are going to hell unless� is false.
What leads almost everyone to believe that God loves the sinner is that God does the sinner so much good. He bestows so many favors including letting him continue to live. How can God let the sinner live and give him so many blessings, unless He loves him? There is a kind of love between God and sinners. We call it the �love of benevolence.� That means the love of good will. Benevolens � willing well. Doing well. God can do well to the sinner without loving him with the other kind of love. �Complacent love,� a pleasure in, affection for, admiration of. It exists in perfection between the Father and the Son, �in whom I am well pleased� (Matt.3:17; Mk.1:11).
God is perfectly displeased with the sinner. The sinner hates God, disobeys God, is ungrateful to God for all His favors, would kill God if he could. He is dead in trespasses and sins. (Eph.2:1) �The thoughts and intents of his heart are only evil continually.� (Gen.6:5) He is the slave of sin (John 8:34), the servant of the devil, (Eph.2:2).
God has no complacent love for the sinner at all. He has a perfect hatred of him, �I hate them with a perfect hatred.� (Ps. 139:22)
Why does God do so much good for those He perfectly hates and as soon as they die impenitent send them immediately to hell and never in all eternity does them one solitary favor more? It is to show His willingness to forgive the sinner if only he will repent. It shows the sincerity of God�s willingness to pardon the greatest sinner that, even while He hates him with a perfect hatred, He showers him with constant daily blessings.
As I mentioned in Chapter 1, there is no �problem of pain.� The only problem is the �problem of pleasure.� Dreadful as it is, it is not surprising that God sends sinners to hell. The problem is why He does not do it sooner. Why does God let a hell-deserving sinner live a minute and then let him prosper like the green bay tree (Ps.37:35), as well? It is obvious that God can destroy the ungrateful. Why doesn�t He? That is the problem.
Yes, the sinner suffers, too. But so little. It is a gentle reminder: though the sinner receives many divine favors, that does not mean that God is pleased with him. It is in spite of the fact that God hates him with a perfect hatred.
Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness
and forbearance and patience, not knowing that the
kindness of God leads you to repentance? (Rom.2:4)
Our text also shows that the one reason a sinner is permitted to be born into and enjoy this world rather than wake up as an infant in hell is that God, with His love of benevolence, is determined to give the sinner a �chance,� an opportunity to repent. Alas, most sinners use it as a chance to sin! They make God�s blessed love of benevolence into a curse.
In this world the sinner enjoys nothing but the benevolent love of God. Every experience of pain as well as pleasure is from God�s love � of benevolence. Even pain is from love because it tends to wake the sinner to his danger. God indeed loves the sinner, whom He hates with a perfect hatred, with a perfect love of benevolence.
The sinner, as I said, makes every divine blessing into a curse including God�s love of benevolence. This he does by construing a love of benevolence as a love of complacency.
Construing God�s love of benevolence as a love of complacency is fatal. Instead of the divine forbearance leading to repentance, it is used as an excuse for non-repentance. Thus the sinner is not saved but damned by God�s love of benevolence.
God �loves� the sinner benevolently and hates the sinner displacently. If the sinner dies impenitent, God removes His love of benevolence and pours out the full wrath of his displacent love.
As far as �hatred of sins� is concerned, sins do not exist apart from the sinner. God does hate sinning, killing, stealing, lying, lusting, etc., but this alludes to the perpetrator of these crimes.
God never hates the redeemed even when they sin. Is He an unfair respecter of persons? No! (Act. 10:34) God hates the unredeemed sinner but loves the redeemed even when they sin for a good and just reason. God loves the redeemed even when they sin because His Son, in whom God is always well-pleased, ever lives to make intercession for them. (Rom.8:27, 34) Christ died to atone for the guilt of His people�s sins. When they sin, these are atoned-for sins. They are sins with their guilt removed. In one sense, they are not sins at all. God does not hate His people when they sin because they are in His Son, Christ Jesus. And they are made acceptable in His Son. He �has made us accepted in the Beloved.� (Eph. 1:6)
Divine nepotism? No, His Son died for these people and paid the price for their sins past, present, and future. They are cancelled before they are committed. That is truth, not fiction. Righteousness, not nepotistic favoritism. In fact, it is not their original relationship to Christ which makes their sins guiltless, but Christ�s making satisfaction for their sins that created the relationship as children adopted into the family of God.
God, in hot displeasure, chastens His people when they sin (Ps.6: 1; 38:1). It is not hatred but complacent love in Christ Jesus. �Whom the Lord loves He chastens.� (Heb. 12:6,7) God loves His people even when He afflicts them and hates the impenitent even when He befriends them.
Why the chastening when there is love? God blessed the wicked when there was holy hatred. Now He chastens His people when there is holy love. This is because true moral behavior must be perfected. No sin can be tolerated in those for whom Christ died. He died to purchase a �peculiar people zealous of good works.� (Titus 2:14) Being redeemed, so far from tolerating their sinning, precludes it. Anyone who persists in sinning proves thereby that he is not a child of God. God punishes His own especially because they are His children. �You only have I chosen among all the families of the earth: Therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities.� (Amos 3:2)
�Upright� man was promised and warned. A holy, just, and perfect God would promise and warn. Eternal life � if obedient. Instant death � the moment of disobedience. (Gen.3:5; Ecc.7:29)
When man sinned, he died spiritually and was rejected from communion with God his maker and friend. (Gen.3; Rom. 5:12ff) The wrath of God was upon him; labor was his lot; suffering in childbirth; alienation and death, as threatened. God is holy; of purer eyes than to behold iniquity. (Hab. 1:13)
Yet mortal man �lived� on (though to live in pleasure is death, 1 Tim. 5:6), and so did promise. When the angels sinned they perished without delay, without promise, without hope.
Man�s fate was better and worse than the fallen angels� lot. It was a day of possible salvation but also of possible greater damnation, greater damnation for sinning away the day of possible salvation. God in His wrath; God in His mercy; at the same time.
This was a terrible but holy wrath. God was using His omnipotent power but according to His perfect justice. Man was affected but he deserved it. It was no more, no less, than he deserved. God is no more powerful than holy; no more holy than powerful.
As man continued to sin, God continued to increase His fury. His wrath is in no hurry. The record is kept, all accounts receivable. Every idle word will be brought into judgment (Matt. 12:36). The cup of iniquity must be filled. Then wrath to the uttermost. (1 Thess. 2:16) God�s glory shines in the perfection of His work.
But � God decreed the sin, (Prov. 16:4). Yes, for good and for glory. Man did it for evil and for shame.
A little sin and infinite wrath? A little sin against an infinite God is infinite. Wrath is in perfect proportion to the guilt. But even if the punishment were finite it would go in �infinitely,� unendingly, because the sinner continues to sin in resenting it.
All glory to God for His holy anger. (John 17:3; Rom.9:17f)
Is our salvation something like "Let's make A Deal...?"...
The Arminian idea is that God has a �plan� or a �proposal� that has �potential� if you opt in.... Or to say it the way they sometimes say it, if you don�t opt out... Arminians start with the assumption of the universal fatherhood of God, of God�s love for everybody... But then if something goes wrong with the relationship that their god �made possible�, it�s your fault...There was potential, but what you did (or didn�t do) was the �deal-breaker�......Mark Mcculley
