We are returning to the doctrine of Unconditional Election and of Irresistible Grace. For those who are less familiar, the doctrine of Unconditional Election basically claims that being united with Christ, being adopted as sons, is planned ahead of time, decided by God alone, by His grace alone. It does not depend on man, whether his desires or efforts, prosperity or nationality. It is dependent on God who calls, not man who becomes. Irresistible Grace states that God works things together in accordance of His good purposes and counsel of His will, such that those He has elected will, in fact, be saved by the power of the Holy Spirit in working in the life of the unfaithful. These two doctrines are intertwined, and for many people they are hard to accept.
Lately I spoke with someone who had a rather counter-intuitive, however accurate, thought regarding the doctrine of Election. Many people believe that it makes free will impossible, or at least the doctrine of Irresistible Grace does, and that since we have free will, we ought to reject the doctrine as nonsense. This other person, however, spoke of the freedom that it gives him. Knowing that it did not depend on him, he foremost cannot worry about needing to earn it or doing something to lose it. It wasn’t on his desire or efforts, so the freedom in Christ brings him freedom to live in joy of God (John 15:11), not in fear of punishment (1 John 4:17-18) or unacceptability. For those who are worried about accepting the doctrines for fear of consequently accepting that humanity is no longer responsible or free, I hope that this insight he has given might be taken seriously. For it comes from the standpoint of awareness of responsibility and the freedom given in Christ, not of the embrace of reckless abandon and irresponsibility akin to Gnosticism.
We have been discussing Election from the context of Romans 9. There is much here to unpack. Now, before we get too deep into this, I am thinking about changing plans. This post will contain the series of Objections that St. Paul of Tarsus raises, taking the Devil’s Advocate, as many are pulled to do with this passage, and his subsequent responses to each. I will not get into Irresistible Grace for a while now, as I said I would previously, except that which is contained in the Objections. I would much rather keep on the topic of Election and drive this point home. When I get to Irresistible Grace, I want to take a philosophical turn in discussing what free will is, why we value it, why God values it, and then show how election and grace do not eliminate free will or that if it does eliminate free will we are not losing something of worth. I think it is necessary to establish these very points before getting too far into the irresistible nature of God’s particular grace. Acknowledging that, let us get back to the text.
The context of Romans 9 is almost entirely a discussion on who God’s chosen people are, and on what basis they might be called His very own. If you would like a fuller discussion on what was leading up to this series, please go here. Jacob and Esau were both in the line of Abraham, the Father of Faith, who was given the covenant by God and promised a holy nation from his offspring. God chose Jacob over Esau, however, to be the child of the promise. When? Before Jacob was even born, before he had done anything right or wrong, or any works. Why? So that “God’s purposes in election might stand” (v.11). Esau was not chosen for the same reason: that His purposes in election might stand.
Think of that. It was decided long ago that someone would become a faithful child of God, before that person existed. Why was that person elected? Because God has a purpose in the election. And what about Esau? “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” It strikes me as odd that Paul says this and uses this line of reasoning, and I myself cringe sometimes, along with most any Arminian, when I think of the fact that these are human lives on the line.
Objection (a): Is God Unjust?
What did Jacob do to deserve being one of God’s chosen people? Nothing. What was so good about Jacob that God should choose him? Nothing. Was there something He saw in Jacob, some faith or some good will? No. It wasn’t Jacob! It was because God wanted to show Jacob love. Yet we could give another story for Esau. What did Esau do to deserve not being one of God’s people? Everything that Jacob did. What was so bad about Esau that God would not choose him? Nothing different from Jacob. Was there something He saw in Esau, some disbelief, unfaithfulness or corrupt will? Yes, but it was nothing that Jacob did not also have at some point. Esau is condemned in his sin and lack of faith that he has by his nature.
If this is the case, then aren’t people damned eternally for something they could never attain, or for not being something they could never be? Why should Esau be condemned, then? Then isn’t this arbitrary? God would be unjust. This cannot be.
The right way of looking at this is not that Esau is condemned unfairly. Both Jacob and Esau were sinners, people who rebelled against God. Both, if judged on their actions, would be damned, apart from God forever. This is a just punishment, is it not? (If you believe it is unjust, then your objection is not with election, but God’s holiness and sovereignty, His treatment of sin and corruption). Thus, if we take it personally, we are probably quite aware that if we were on trial for crimes we had done, we would not normally cry injustice when we are let off scot-free. We rejoice in the mercy of the judge. We might, perhaps, cry injustice if we were the ones sinned against and the culprit were let go; but suppose we know that we are on trial next, would we really shout then? Would we demand that God vindicate us victims then? I think, if we were mature about it, we would let the judge be the judge and accept his pronouncements.
So, in the case of Jacob and Esau, both were guilty. Yet one was shown mercy. It is the same with all the elect. All were guilty, the elect were shown mercy.
Romans 9:
[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.”
[16] It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy.
[17] For the 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.”
See here? In this passage, the weight is not that God ought to be considered unjust, but rather, if anything, merciful and compassionate. It is His prerogative, or rather, His right, to show love according to His own desires and plans. It is, after all, His love that He wants to show. He isn’t compelled to love everyone the same way, is He? No one says to the groom, “You’re being unfair. You are loving your bride more than other women.” No one says this even though he ought to show all women love and respect. No one says this even if she mistreats him more often than many other women he comes in contact with. No one says this, because the bride was his choice. And we are Christ’s Bride, the church.
After thinking about how it is God’s decision to love in the measure He desires, I was reminded of the parable Jesus gave, where there were some workers in a vineyard who started early in the day and others who started near dusk. They were all paid the same. It is, perhaps, the opposite problem of grace shown above, but the answer is very similar. It is ultimately up to God whom He shows love, and in what measure He deems appropriate for His purposes that He gives grace. “Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?” (Matthew 20:15) Thus, the parallel I want to draw is that God has a right to do with His creation what He wants, and to show love, abounding love that never fails on whomever it pleases Him to do so.
But the problem becomes bigger. Paul gives the example of Pharaoh, who God raised up for the purpose of demonstrating His own power that His name be praised. This is an odd turn for Paul to prove His point, but in a sense it makes the underlying problem more obvious. A great reason we want to charge God with being unjust is because we have an issue with His sovereignty. We think we know what is right better than He does. So how does he respond to this issue, hidden behind the mask of God not doing what He ought, which is such a stumbling block? He says not only does God have a right to love whom He pleases, but He also has a right to orchestrate the story of life, authoring it with the theme of His own glory, with good and bad characters to demonstrate this. This will addressed more fully later.
But suppose for a moment that you are not one of God’s elect. You have a hard heart and God never decides to soften it, but instead, through various circumstances in life, you become more and more calloused. Even things in life that would’ve been easier for you to repent from and come to God in faith when you were younger have now no effect on you. You continue to live in your natural state, in rebellion toward God. He has left you to your own ways. You will, effectively, never come to God.
Or suppose the opposite, that you are one of God’s elect. Your heart has been softened, molded and changed by God. Through various circumstances in your life and by the power of the Holy Spirit, you act in faith and become baptized. You have repented of your sin and enjoy a relationship with God the rest of your life. He has not left you to your own ways but saved you from them. You have, effectively, received God’s free gift of salvation.
Which are you? Think about that for a moment. For Paul speaks about these, both of these, as being foreordained by God. Using Pharaoh’s example, Paul gives us a clear picture of God using an ungodly man to show His own sovereignty and power. Bringing this into the greater scope and tone of the chapter of being God’s chosen people, it seems rather natural to ask questions about our responsibility in all this. If we could be either one, and whether we are one or the other depends on the fact that God must change someone’s rebellious heart, then what choice do we have?
Objection (b): Why does God still blame us?
If, after all, it could be said that it is ultimately up to God whether you are left to your own devices and never come to Him, or are brought into repentance through the power of the Holy Spirit, then who is really responsible here? Is it you, or is it God? If you are really responsible, then how can we make sense of that, given you, being totally depraved, would never act in faith on your own? After all, He did make you this way. Yet if it is God, then isn’t God, then, causing people to live in sin, or can’t God be charged with negligence? After all, He could’ve changed you.
Paul answers this in a way that many people will not like: God is God and you are not. God can do whatever He wants, whether you understand it or not, and whether you like it or not. He has a divine sovereign right that no one else has which is the authority to deal with His creation in any way He thinks fit.
That’s scary. God can do whatever He wants and not be wrong? Of course, His nature is perfectly and wholly good, so technically He will never want to do something that is wrong. But more to the point: God made everything for a purpose. He has even given us this day for a reason. His reasons are His. We answer to God, but He doesn’t have to answer to us. He doesn’t have to condescend to our level to give us an account of His actions.
So when someone asks, “Why does God still blame us? For who resists His will?” Paul responds by saying that person is out of line. He does not know his place, for he does not realize that he is demanding God to give an accounting for His divine judgments. Now, remember Job, who had been considered blameless and was cursed head to toe in boils and had his family and possessions (everything), who when God spoke to him and his friends from the whirlwind, decided to shut his mouth for he could give no accounting even for himself nor charge God with any evil. The Creator made all things for Himself. He is called “The Lord” for a reason.
Romans 9:
[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 resists his will?”
[20] But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’ “
[21] 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?
Misinterpretation of passage: This is not talking about salvation
Someone, when seeing the passage Romans 9:18-21 does not see it talking about salvation. Most often, especially given the wording of v21 (“some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use”) make the text out to mean something else, such as spiritual gifts. Thus, the text is to mean that God forms people unequally skilled, gifted, or endowed. Not everyone can sing, not everyone can preach persuasively, not everyone has the gift of healing, not everyone is given the same gifts or in the same measure of gifts.
While this is true that God gives people differently according to His plan, and according to the individuals faith, this is not what the text is talking about at all. Remembering that this is within the context of being God’s chosen people, whether Jew or Gentile, believer or unbeliever, this would be a rather distinct shift in topic and tone from the entire discourse previously laid out.
Here we have in verses 1-13 talk of children of the promise and those who are not elected. Thus, the dichotomy of groups is not believer apart from believer (to which spiritual gifts would refer), but rather believer in the line of Abraham and unbeliever in the line of Abraham. That is, the very discussion is about those who will be saved and those who will not (e.g. Paul was crying in anguish for his unbelieving Jewish brethren in the first three verses of the chapter). So, if you try to read the verses 18-21 and go backward, you’re going to get into a very, very different kind of discussion than giftedness.
Some might say that Paul is, in fact, changing topics slightly. This is not supportable. In the overall flow of Romans, he gets a lot of the doctrine down first and then gives application. Sure. But perhaps you continue following in the chapter, you would see that he changed topics in this passage. If it were a change of topic, then Paul would continue on this thought for more than a sentence or two if it deviated significantly. But that is not what we see either. The previous context continues until the end of the chapter with talk about the Jews and the Gentiles, about the believers and unbelievers, about those who are prepared for glory and those who are prepared for destruction. It is not about giftedness. It is about salvation through election.
The straight-forward way of reading the text in its context is that God has decided to use some for glory and some for shame. Some for showing how merciful He is, and some for showing how terrible it is to be rebellious in the hands of God. Some will be raised up in the last day in glory, others, those who follow the common path of sin, will be damned.
Now, remember the phrase “in order that God’s purposes in election might stand”, from verse 11. Paul has in mind something he wants to clarify. He believes, as I stated previously, that God has reasons for electing some rather than others, and that these reasons are His. We don’t need to know what they are. We can’t demand that He tell us either. But Paul does not want to stay there, for that is merely faith. He wants to give us a way of life and an attitude adjustment. Namely, what purposes might God have in electing some and not others?
Paul’s Speculation
[22] “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?”
[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?”
The purposes in election that God wants to stand are a mystery. Foremost, we must be able to accept that before we continue. It takes humility, in the sense that we ought to recognize our place in relation with God. If we never find the reasons for His election, it is still His right to exact His decrees according to His pleasure. If we never find an answer that is satisfying, we must be able to still respect that He is good and just in what He does. That said, Paul offers two possibilities (which are compatible for both to be true) as to why God elects some.
(a) That He might show His patience by sparing them for a time and His wrath by exacting due justice.
The first speculation is that God receives glory from showing the greatness of His wrath and might, of His mercy and patience; and this glorification is the reason for how election plays out. This particular suggestion has two sides. First, that those who are damned will feel the weight of their sin due them. God is just. Sin must be punished. The wrath of God needs to be poured out in power and might to demonstrate the severity of lawless rebellion against the Almighty God. Second side is that this is intended to show that those who ought to be damned are really under God’s merciful patience with their rebellion. Had there been no such patience, He would have wiped them out. He shows His love to even to His corrupt, rebellious creation for a time.
We see a similar idea in Matthew, where there is a parable of the weeds growing with the wheat. The reason for bearing with great patience the objects prepared for destruction (i.e. the weeds), is to give the elect a chance to flourish and bear fruit. God says that He will have patience and cut the weeds down later. For now, if He takes out the ungodly weeds sown in His garden the result would be an uprooting of the elect. This a possible reason to bear with great patience those prepared for destruction, but ultimately Paul appeals to the idea that God receives recognition and acknowledgment as the Almighty God, who is worth of all praise, through demonstrating His nature actively in Creation in His power and might and wrath.
(b) That He might show the riches of His mercy for His elect, even people who did not have the Law or the covenants.
The other possibility, wholly compatible with the other in my opinion, is that He demonstrates the riches of His love. By choosing some, they are selected in love. Let’s go back to the analogy given before about a husband and wife. Paul has state elsewhere that marriage is a symbol of Christ and the Church (Eph 5:22-33). Jesus uses the analogy of the bride and groom many times throughout the Gospels. One analogy is how He is preparing a place for His bride, another is how He paid the price for the nuptial agreement.
Consider the analogy further in the following way, as was mentioned before. The groom does not just love everyone the same way. He has selected a bride whom he loves more than other women. The other women might be more attractive or responsible, but they are not the one the husband chose. The husband and wife have a commitment to one another that goes past looks, debt, health or circumstance. The man loves his wife unlike he does the other women with whom he comes in contact, that she might know his particular love that he only has for his wife. She is special to him. He cares for and cherishes her. She has her quirks, problems and uniqueness.
God cares for and cherishes His holy Bride, the Church. God chooses His people for showing His particular love that she, His Church, might know the riches of His mercy and glory that is reserved for those who are faithful to Him. To have election is to have this differentiation. This differentiation gives further praise to God for it displays how loving and merciful He is, that God might be glorified above all for His riches in mercy on those He has prepared for their glory.
While this was supposed to give some intuitive appeal to the idea, this differentiation is most definitely not mainstream in acceptance. For many think that if God is a loving God, then He loves everyone the same way so that He is impartial and not showing favoritism. This is a misunderstanding of what it means to be impartial and showing favoritism with respect to God’s relationships with men. For it is said of the virgin Mary that she was “highly favored” (NIV; “has found favour with God”, KJV). Likewise, it is said of Noah, Jacob, Moses, Gideon, Samuel, and many others throughout the Scriptures that they “found favor in eyes of the Lord” or that God had favored them. The verses “God does not show favoritism” and the like are to be interpreted in their proper context, which talks about racism and classism (Jew vs Gentile, slave vs free, male vs female, etc.). God loves people and gives them purposes, but not because of race or class or social status. He uses people great and small for His name’s sake. It is in this way that God is impartial. He doesn’t look at external appearances like men do. However, God can still show greater love to some rather than others. It is from this premise that we can better understand election. But there is still more ground to cover regarding the differentiation of love in bringing about greater glory to God.
So let us return to the idea of Jacob and Esau (which symbolize Israel and Edom) in the original text from which Paul cited: Malachi 1. This prophet records a dialogue given by God, of how He has shown Israel love and they question it. This is quite relevant to the discussion of election. Here is a portion of the passage:
Malachi 1:2-5
[2] “I have loved you,” says the LORD.
“But you ask, ‘How have you loved us?’
“Was not Esau Jacob’s brother?” the LORD says.
“Yet I have loved Jacob,
[3] but Esau I have hated, and I have turned his mountains into a wasteland and left his inheritance to the desert jackals.”
[4] Edom may say, “Though we have been crushed, we will rebuild the ruins.”
But this is what the LORD Almighty says: “They may build, but I will demolish. They will be called the Wicked Land, a people always under the wrath of the LORD.
[5] You will see it with your own eyes and say, ‘Great is the LORD -even beyond the borders of Israel!’
Historically, Edom and Israel have been feuding since the beginning when they were brothers (Jacob and Esau), and will continue to battle until the end. But what is more important in this passage is that God chose Jacob over Esau, even though they were brothers. What is so peculiar is that the question “How have you loved us?” is answered in this way: “Yet I have loved Jacob, but Esau have I hated”. Think about that. How has God loved Israel? By loving them and hating Esau. Take another look at the text.
The Lord loves Israel partly by hating Esau. Now, if this seems rather disproportionately examined or inappropriately in its emphasis, then continue to read the chapter for context. Verses 4 and 5 continue to talk not of the blessings in food or their victories in war or things of that nature, but rather of how God is setting Himself against Edom. He has given them a desert reservation in which they may live. If they flourish, it will be slow and difficult. And when they get by, God crushes them. When Edom tries to rebuild, God dashes their efforts.
This is the love of God to Israel? This seems very odd and quite backward on the surface. Would we expect our friends and lovers to show this kind of attitude toward our enemies (or peers) on our behalf? Perhaps we would for our enemies, but not our peers. Most certainly I would not normally think of God acting in such a way, for it seems petty and biased in a sense that doesn’t seem just. However, what seems to be the true here is the idea of differentiation. He is bringing justice on those who are unfaithful. It is just, it is right, for they are unfaithful and punishment is due them on account of their rebellion. But in this case, it is showing love to those who are faithful by demonstrating for them that He takes faithfulness itself seriously, that He takes His faithful bride seriously. They are important to Him, such that all things might be considered forsaken or lost when compared to His bride.
This interpretation is strong, I believe, but it is still in some respects speculative on my part. I know of no better way to understand the passage. There are other interpretations, but they seem like stretches or just inadequate in some way or another. For this reason, I think that its difficulty in acceptance should not be forgotten. If it is difficult, then we need to truly wrestle with it to see if that’s what it really says, and if so, then humbly accept it and work it into our greater understanding of God and the Scriptures — instead of the reverse, which is to make our understanding of God and personal beliefs stand over and against Scripture.
Given the texts Paul cites to support the position, he seems favorable about these possibilities, but is by no means is he committed to them. Importantly, underlying both possibilities is the idea that God may elect as a means of maximizing His glory in His creation. This is through demonstrating His whole character for us. A full picture showing His justice and holiness, righteousness and wrath, mercy and love, patience and power. To show who He is to us gives us greater reason to honor and glorify Him for who He is.
I believe it is for this reason He elects some and not others. Not for arbitrary purposes, but for working all things together to maximize glory to Himself. In closing, take the next few verses, where it continues to inspire glory to God, which Paul cites after giving the speculative suggestions.
(Romans 9:23-29)
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— even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? 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,” and,
”It will happen that in the very place where it was said to them,
’You are not my people,’
they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’ ”
Isaiah cries out concerning Israel:
”Though the number of the Israelites be like the sand by the sea,
only the remnant will be saved.
For the Lord will carry out
his sentence on earth with speed and finality.”
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.”
A lament for those perishing due to their unfaithfulness. But praise God, for some are saved according to His grace. Some are saved even in the least likely way, in the least likely people, with the least likely result, that God might be credited with all the glory and no man boast.
