Helpful Resource: Still Sovereign, edited by Thomas R. Schreiner and Bruce Ware – a collection of essays dealing with biblical, theological and practical (the relationship of sovereignty to prayer and evangelism, for example) aspects of God’s absolute sovereignty over all things.
Context
What is Paul concerned with?
Not suddenly offering a detached defense of individual election
Not presenting some abstract thought that suddenly departs from the context
Romans 9:6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.
What does that mean?
What word of God has not failed?
Why could one think that the word had failed in the first place?
How does the fact that “not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel” evidence that the word of God has not failed?
(That’s what the text has said, it is not as though the word has failed for/because not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel.)
What does all of this mean?
To understand that, we need to go back a bit. In particular, we want to go back about a quarter of a chapter to the often quoted and much beloved Romans 8:28.
Romans 8:28-30 And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.
God makes a promise to those who are called by Him according to His purpose that He will work all things for good for them.
What good? Vs. 29 “they they may be conformed to the image of Christ.”
This is the definition of whether or not something that has happened to you is “good.” Every gift that God gives His children is good, even those things which are called “bad” in some sense, such as cancer, or poverty, or persecution. God promises not to save us from suffering, but rather to use all things to make us more like Christ.
If we don’t like it, what does that say about us?
- we don’t believe that God will really cause this to make us look more like Christ (disbelief)
- we desire something (health, wealth, safety, etc.) as more important than being conformed to Christ (idolatry)
So, God will work all things for good and He grounds or basis this promise (notice the word “for” in verse 29) on His foreknowledge and predestination which leads to His effective call to justification and ultimately glorification.
Therefore, because God has promised this to us, we can confidently declare that no charge can stand against us and nothing can separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus (vss 31-39). We read this declaration on coffee mugs and sing about it and it sounds really chipper, but Paul gets to chapter 9 and says, “now wait a second, if God’s promise to us is based on election and the effect is that we are secure in Christ and cannot be separated from God’s love, then it might seem like God’s promise has failed.”
Why does he write this?
Because there is another group of people who have been “called” by God. There is another group who were said to be “loved” by Him. Namely Israel. They were the chosen or “elect” people. And yet many of them were by and large disbelieving and thus perishing. And this poses a serious theological problem.
If God’s electing love is the basis for our assurance that we will never be separated from Christ and yet we know that God had electing love for Israel and they are cut off from Christ then how can we be confident? Doesn’t our confidence crumble if our assurance is related to election and God’s election of Israel failed?
Furthermore, if God has broken His promise to Israel, doesn’t that bring disgrace upon God’s character? Like Moses arguing for God to spare Israel in the wilderness lest the peoples of the nations should think He had failed, Paul is concerned to prove that God’s promises have not failed and will not fail.
Because Israel had rejected the Christ and thus were not inheriting the promises that are fulfilled in Him, it seemed like the word of God had failed. God said (His word) that He loved Israel and would save Israel and yet Israel was not being saved, but rather cut off. There were Israelites that believed (including Paul), but by and large the nation was perishing in their rejection of the Messiah. This was the theological problem that Paul is addressing.
Let’s see how he addressed it.
Textual Analysis
Romans 9:6-8 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.
Why does Paul say that the word has not failed?
Because the word was given to Israel and not all who are Israel are Israel.
That is confusing. Not all who are Israel are Israel.
Here is what he means, there are two ways to use the term “Israel.” One is according to the flesh and the other is according to faith. One is according to birth, the other belief. One is based on ethnicity and the other we will see is on the basis of election.
There is a distinction within Israel itself. The ethnic people contained those who were elect and also those who were not. Not all Israel (by birth) are Israel (by belief). God’s promise was given to Israel in the second sense (the sense of faith). So, God’s word to save Israel has not failed because He is saving Israel, that is the children of faith, the children of promise, the elect, the remnant. That includes some who are also Israel in the first sense, Paul was an ethnic Jew, but by and large, ethnic Israel had abandoned the faith and thus rejected the promises directed to those who would believe.
Paul is going to develop this point with two particular examples of what he calls God’s purpose of election. The first involves Abraham and the second involves Isaac. Both of these are used to support the idea of a distinction within Israel between progeny and promise.
The first example is Abraham. From Genesis we learn that God appeared to Abraham and told him that He would grant him offspring through whom the world would be blessed. Abraham waited for some time and eventually his wife, Sarah, suggested that he sleep with her servant Hagar, which Abraham agreed to. Hagar conceives and gives birth to Ishmael. Abraham thought, “now I have a son and the Lord will bless the nations through my son,” but God said, “no, I will bless you through the son you will bear by Sarah.” In other words, mere physical descent from Abraham did not mean that you inherited the promises made to him and his offspring. God simply sovereignly chose Isaac over Ishmael. He could have chosen Ishmael, but He did not do so.
Fine, you may say, but Ishmael was born by another woman and was born before Isaac. Maybe God’s choice of Isaac was related to the circumstances of the birth or the timing.
That brings us to the next example. Abraham’s son, Isaac, and his wife, Rebekah, had two children and God chose one over the other. Those children were twins and therefore the circumstances of birth and/or timing were the same. We cannot explain why God chose one over the other by appealing to the fact that one had a different mother or was older, indeed the one who was slightly younger was actually chosen against all cultural values of that time.
So, God did not choose them on the basis of their birth order or lineage, but perhaps He chose them then on the basis of their character. The text specifically speaks against this too by saying that His choice was “before they were done or had done anything good or bad.” Some might here say, “Well, God chose them before they had done anything good or bad, but His choice was based upon what they were going to do.” In other words, God’s choice was based upon His foreknowledge that Jacob would choose Him and Esau would reject Him.
But that is not at all the explanation of the text. It would have been really easy to have said that God saw what they would do and become and chose on that basis, but that is not what it says. Why does it say that God chose Jacob over Esau? Vs. 11 “though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad – in order that God’s purpose according to election might continue…”
The reason that God chose Jacob over Esau is not because of their character, but rather because of God’s purpose of election. So, what is election as it is used in Romans 9?
Calvinists say that election in Romans 9 includes God’s sovereign choice of individuals for salvation and that Paul is here explaining why Israel is split between those who believe and those who do not believe as being because of God’s purpose of election.
Arminians on the other hand declare that this passage is not dealing with individual salvation, but rather election to certain temporal, earthly privileges. One scholar has written, “The absolute election of Jacob has reference simply to the election of one to higher privileges, as head of the chosen race, than the other. It has nothing to do with their eternal salvation.”[1]
Though I wish we had more time to work through this, I would simply point out a few places which would really argue for the position that this context is referring to individual salvation. Here are 3 evidences for the Calvinist interpretation of unconditional election in Romans 9 as including the salvation of individuals:
- Context:
Romans 9 must not be jerked out of its context and especially the link to the latter half of chapter 8. Remember that Paul has just spoken about the issue of being “separated from the love of God in Christ Jesus.” That is a salvific reference.
The end of chapter 9 and into chapter 10 contrasts righteousness of works of the law with the righteousness of faith, a contrast that is always used by Paul in reference to salvation.
Here is what Thomas Schreiner says about the context: “what concerns Paul in Romans 9-11 is not merely that Israel has lost temporal blessings, or that its historical destiny has not evolved the way he anticipated. Paul agonizes over the place of Israel in Romans 9-11 because too many in his nation were not saved.”[2]
- Implicit Arguments:
Romans 9 Paul could almost wish himself accursed for the sake of his kinsmen. I can barely begin to understand how someone might be willing to wish himself cut off from Christ so that someone may be saved, but I cannot even begin to fathom why someone would use such strong language unless salvation is at stake. I might be willing to give up my salvation so that my family would come to faith. I would never be willing to give up my salvation so that my family could have a bigger house or better car or some other merely temporal privilege.
- Explicit Language:
The latter half of the chapter, verses 20-23 will contrast vessels of mercy prepared for glory with vessels of wrath prepared for destruction. This is a very difficult and weighty contrast that I wish we had more time to delve into, but suffice for now to say that such language is not used in the Scriptures to refer to temporal blessing.
10:1 Brothers, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved. The problem is that Israelites by and large are not being saved. Paul is not concerned that they are not getting to share in temporal blessing, he is concerned that they are not getting to partake in Christ and the life that He offers.
We could go on, but that should give you some flavor of the text. The entire context of Romans 9-11 is in reference to salvation, the language implies salvation, and Paul explicitly refers to salvation in a number of places within the text.
What I am arguing for is that Romans 9 teaches that God sovereignly chooses or elects certain people for salvation before the foundation of the world, and that this election is not on the basis of who or what they are, will become, or will do. God’s election of individuals is not a response to faith, but is rather the ground or explanation for why some people do believe. As 9:16 says, “It (that is God’s purpose of election or the distribution of His mercy) does not depend on human will or exertion.”
Did you just get that? God’s mercy does not depend on man’s will. Those who claim that salvation is on the basis of “free will” have a really difficult time with a verse that specifically says that it is not on the basis of man’s will.
The Objections of Romans 9
When one is talking about this idea of God’s unconditional election of certain individuals to eternal life, there are two frequent objections that are often raised. First, that God is unjust. Second, that God should not hold men responsible for their sins if they do not have the ability to resist His will in the first place.
It is extremely important to notice that those two questions are in the text. Paul says in effect, “if you have understood me correctly then you will probably initially have these two objections.”[3]
Here in Romans 9 Paul’s teaching could make God seem unjust on the surface and thus he says, “Is there injustice on God’s part?”
Before we see how he answers that question, I want to point out the importance of these two objections in vss 14 and 19. Paul’s teaching on the surface calls into question God’s justice (14) and man’s accountability (19).
Arminianism does neither of those two. Arminian theology defines soteriological election (election in regards to salvation) as being in regards to foreseen faith. God chooses those whom He knows will one day choose Him. This does not introduce any problems with either God’s justice or man’s responsibility. If God chooses those who choose Him, no one stands up and says, “then God is unfair.” Even more critical is the objection in vs. 19. The objection makes no sense within an Arminian understanding. The Arminian position is that God’s grace is ultimately resistible which would not in any way produce the question, “for who resists His will?” Paul would have simply answered that question, “lots of people.” There must be a sense in which no one resists God’s ultimate, sovereign, decisive will of decree. Arminianism does not produce the objections that Paul’s teaching produces which would seem to imply that Paul is not teaching Arminianism.
Calvinism, on the other hand, produces exactly these objections which strongly evidences that the Calvinistic way of reading the text is the Pauline meaning of the text. If Calvinism raises the same objections as Paul’s preaching, then it would seem to demonstrate that Calvinists are reading Paul correctly. The most common push backs on unconditional election is that God seems unjust and that man should not be held responsible if God exercises His sovereignty through unconditional election, the exact two objections that Paul’s teaching introduces.
Having said that, let’s look at how Paul answers the question of God’s justice.
Objection 1: The Justification of God
Romans 9;14-18 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
How does that answer help? How does it help if someone questions the justice of God in His decision to show mercy to some and to harden others and we answer that God is just because He says that He will show mercy and compassion to whomever He chooses? It is like Paul is saying, God is just because He said so, but let’s look a little deeper.
Paul quotes two Old Testament passages which relate God’s righteousness to His glory. This question of God’s justice prompted John Piper to write, The Justification of God, which is a comprehensive exegetical look at Romans 9. In it he says that God’s righteousness consists in His “unswerving commitment always to preserve the honor of his name and display his glory.”
In other words, justice is not something that stands outside of God as a value or virtue that He must live up to. Anything that God does is by definition good and righteous and just because He is God. That is critical for us to consider. As fallen and proud creatures, we want to sit God down in a courtroom and question His justice as if we are the judge, but we are most assuredly not.
God’s justice or righteousness is not His living up to our standards, rather His fierce dedication to the standard of the proper and good exaltation of His name and renown. God is righteous in election because election explicitly displays His glory. That is what Romans 9 is all about. That is why Paul quoted Exodus 33 in verse 15 when he writes, “For he says to Moses, ‘I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.’”
What was the context of God saying this to Moses?
Exodus 33:18 Moses said, ‘Please show me your glory.’ And he said, ‘I will make all my goodness pass before you and will proclaim before you my name ‘The LORD.’ And I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy.”
God’s glory consists of His commitment to His name and an aspect of the demonstration of that glory is God’s freedom and sovereignty in election. This connection between election and God’s purpose in glory is made explicitly clear in Ephesians 1:
- Ephesians 1:3-6 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved.
- Ephesians 1:11-12 In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory.
Objection 2: The Responsibility of Man
If God merely chooses to show mercy to some and chooses to harden others, then why does He still find fault? Why does He judge man if man cannot ultimately resist God’s decision? This is the next question that Paul brings up.
He answers it first by noting a certain air of criticism in the question. Paul writes, “who are you to answer back to God.” The word translated “answer back” has the nuance of judging and thus some commentators have translated it, “cross examine.” Paul is not concerned with a humble question, but he is concerned with any hint of arrogance or disapproval in man. We can ask God questions, but we cannot question God. There is a difference.
He then gives the analogy of a potter and his rights over a pot. If I ask someone whether or not a potter has absolute rights over a pot they will undoubtedly say yes, but when I ask if God has absolute rights over His creation, then people hesitate. Why is that?
Because we are not pots. We are better than pots we think. But we forget that God is better than a potter as well. If potters are so much greater than pots, then how much greater is God than us? Once again, our hesitation to accept the analogy can betray in us not so subtle arrogance.
After dealing with the arrogance and orienting us toward our proper humility, Paul writes this in vss. 22-3: “What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory.”
This is an unbelievably weighty text and it grates against every fiber of our natural desire for inherent worth and value and freedom.
The basic idea is that God’s grace shines greatest against the backdrop of His wrath. It is only by pondering what we deserve and what others no worse than us get that we can begin to fully understand the depths of His grace to us and this grace is the very aspect of His glory which He most wants us to understand and embrace and enjoy as Ephesians 1 has said.
Review:
- Romans 9-11 is answering the question of why and how it is that Israel has been cut off from the promises of God and how they will one day inherit those promises in the future when it appears that a large number of them will one day trust in Christ.
- Paul says that God’s word has not failed because the promise was always to the children of promise (those who believe) and not the children of the flesh.
- Paul furthers clarifies that those who are the children of promise are so because God has chosen them for such a purpose.
- This choosing or electing ultimately displays the glory of God’s grace, which is the standard by which God works all things.
Conclusion:
God has created the world and called out of the world His elect for the praise of the glory of His grace. That is why we exist, that we might see and savor and ponder and praise and taste and talk about the glory of God.
Sometimes when we read Romans 9 we get lost in the logic and weight of these truths and forget the very context that we started from and so I want to go back to Romans 8:28-39.
God’s election is the means by which He makes these promises to you. If you want to count on your own free will to keep you in salvation then you sever yourself from the promise that nothing can separate you from Christ because you have lost the root or ground upon which that promise was made. You sever yourself from the promise that no charge will stand against you because you have lost the root. You sever yourself from the promise that God will cause all things, every single thing, to work toward the ultimate good of making you look like His Son because you have lost the root.
Election is not some dirty theological word that preachers and theologians made up to confuse people or make God look bad, it is the reality of God’s working with His people to bring them from a domain of darkness and death to a kingdom of light and life. Election is a good thing.
Prayer:
Romans 11:33-36 Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor? Or who has given a gift to him that he might be repaid? For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.
[1] Sanday and Headlam as quoted in John Piper’s
The Justification of God, 2
nd edition, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993, 57.
[2] Schreiner and Ware, Still Sovereign, Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2000, 91.
[3] This is the same type of thing that he has done previously such as in Romans 6 where he has just wrapped up chapter 5 by talking about how man’s increased sin displayed greater depths of God’s glory and so he asks, “should we sin all the more so that grace will abound?”
Bible Texts, Sovereignty
