Romans 9: But God
Amongst Protestant churches of the reformation besides sacramentology, there was perhaps no topic more hotly debated than that of predestination. These churches were agreed upon a predestining to salvation. However, when they came to the text of Romans 9 there was a difference in opinion between those who followed the Lutheran school of thought and those who followed that of the Calvin. The Lutherans confessed that God elects to salvation and that election was not a mere foreseeing the faith of one individual but the decretal cause thereof. While they believed that God caused Christians to believe in Christ by His effectual means of grace according to His eternal will, they rejected the idea that He had any kind of will regarding a predestining to damnation. Calvin approached the issue from a different perspective. He believed that in the very same way that God causally elects Christians to salvation through Christ He predestines the heathen to damnation through sin. The difference between these two positions extends further than election and reprobation reaching back to the way that God’s sovereignty and providence work themselves out in the world. This paper will examine the plain reading of the text, look through the historical perspectives on it, and examine how the truth of Romans 9 applies to the lives of believers.
The text begins with a background of Paul’s sadness that springs out of a love for his fellow countrymen. From V. 1-5 Paul speaks of the sorrow he has for those in Israel who do not believe. Expanding upon this he says that it was to them that were given the promises of grace which they did not receive. From V. 6-13 we see that although it seems as if the lack of salvation amongst the Jews was due to a deficiency in the means of grace, the cause of this was through man’s own depravity and hardness of heart. Phrased in the positive, the presence of salvation is brought into caused by God’s electing love. This works through the promised seed. The promised seed is the seed waited for and promised by the Lord which finds its antitype in Christ. In one sense we can apply this spiritual seed title to those who show themselves to be true children of Abraham in that we have faith as he did which is an application found in John 8:39. In another sense, this can be applied directly to Christ who is the promised seed foretold in Genesis 3:15 which is an application that we find in Galatians 3:16. These two applications can be understood together. Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 15:22 that it is from being in Christ through a mystical union wrought by faith that we receive salvation. It then follows that the promised seed, as in those who are elect, are the promised seed because their election is an election to mystical union with the singular promised seed which is Christ. Although chronologically Paul states that it is because they are not the promised seed before stating that God loves the promised seed and hated that which was only physical seed it is clear that there is more than a mere correlation going on here. As V. 11 says; it was before either brother was born, before they had done either good or evil that one would find blessing over the other. The only reason given for this particular blessing is God’s purpose in election. V. 13 says it is because of this that one was blessed. Although Calvinists are often charged with drawing from election an inferred negative towards those who are not elect the text in front of us leaves no room for inferred negatives, but rather states plainly; “Esau I hated”. Neither is the text of Malachi 1:2-3 that Paul is citing here leaving room for inference, Esau’s hatred in Malachi leads not to passively being left without salvation but with an active destruction that flows from God’s hatred for him. We must, therefore, mind Paul’s choice of reference here. Just as election is the manifestation of God’s love so is the hardness of the Jews which is seen in various portions of Romans such as 1:21, 11:7, and here in 9:18 a manifestation of His hatred. Love properly understood is not an abstract emotion that comes as a response to something externally received but it is an action verb that flows from an internal commitment into an external manifestation. Out of His love, God elects people so as to become His promised seed in Christ. Hatred likewise must not be understood as a simple emotional reaction as God is not reactionary, nor is He a passible entity. A God that created ex nihilo hardly ought to be considered reactionary. Out of love, He creates faith. Out of a hatred for sin He destroys and punishes ungodliness. Because God is love, all that He does must flow out of that. It is part of His inseparable essence rather than a mere attribute. God’s hatred, therefore, is not reactionary because it does not flow out of opposition to a thing arising but out of a positive love for what is always existing, the eternal character of divine perfection, the Father’s love for the Son, the Son’s love for the Father, the Spirit’s love for the Father and the Son. When God’s hatred for sin and lack of conformity to the character of God which all of natural creation was created in plays out in the world we see God’s justice. This justice comes as we see in Malachi 1 as referenced by Paul where in V. 3 Esau’s future is blotted out entirely both in land and offspring. This justice in the elect is satisfied in the punishment of Christ who bore the infinite wrath of God so as to bear the sins of the whole world. The love of God being upon sinful man is a love that transforms a sinner into a saint through Christ who bears the full brunt of the sin and clothes them in His own righteousness. This is an election to righteousness and conformity to God’s unmarred image. Because of the nature of God’s love and His hatred as discussed above, His love cannot exist upon one whom He has not elected to righteousness through Christ.
From these assertions made by Paul, many may be left wondering how God can still be considered good if He has not elected all men. From V. 14-23 this is precisely the thought that Paul addresses. In V. 14-18 Paul looks at this from two different angles; mercy and the hardening of hearts with the example of Pharaoh. Beginning with mercy which is shown first in V. 15 with reference to God telling Moses that God will Himself choose whom to show mercy to in light of the sin of idolatry at Sinai. For mercy to exist there needs to be sin and a punishment connected to that sin as a norm that may be exempted via mercy. This election is therefore in light of sin. Looking back to being elect as the promised seed of God being before good or evil had been done in V. 11 we see that from this very mention of mercy that V. 11 is teaching against an election based on foresight of works and lack of election based on foresight of evil deeds. If V. 11 were teaching that election occurs logically before there was a need for it then V. 15 and Paul’s use of this reference falls completely flat. Election, is a having mercy upon fallen man that brings him in conformity to God’s image through means. V. 16 drives further the point that V. 11 makes, God’s election is not influenced by man. The idea of the reactionary God here does not fit. If our idea of God is one where He looks into the future to decide who to elect then Paul should have instead said rather that it depends indeed very much on man’s will if not even on his exertion. Man cannot strive amongst others to save them. There is no church strategy or evangelism technique nor even sheer persistence that will bring man to a saving faith in the saviour. It is not even of the man’s individual will which is entirely corrupt and incapable of such a task as believing God’s promise of salvation. Genesis 6:5 makes clear enough to the reader that man’s will, free or bound, is entirely inclined to sin against God and neighbour in its fallen state. Man cannot wake up one day as a sinner and then decide out of an independent will to have faith. This faith can come after the fall only as a gift of grace which is given by God. Our will rejects this gift of grace with the utmost zeal unless God, through His grace, regenerates us by His Ghost so as to quicken our spirits and make dead bones live once again. In light of sin and the fall, if God’s election did depend upon will or exertion we would all be in hell as the depraved will of man only exerts itself to do the works of sin. This grants us much clarity when we come to V. 17 and Paul’s reference to Pharaoh’s hardening. This hardening of Pharaoh’s heart first must be understood in the context of the understanding of this concept that is already given. The hardening of the heart is not another term for eternal predestination to hell. Hardening of heart is a concept best pictured in Isaiah 6:9-10 wherein God says of those who reject the gospel that their hearts are dull, their eyes blind, their ears are deaf, and in other places, these terms are used in conjunction with the idea of a stiff neck. What all of these refer to is the idolatrous nature of the people. They have refused to worship the God whose image they were naturally created in and so they have in worshiping lifeless statues taken on their image. They become in a sense as that which they worship. Although it is often claimed that the idea of hardening refers to a hindering of the people’s ability to hear and respond to the gospel, they were already since the fall unable or rather by nature unwilling to do so. This would be akin to setting a death penalty for the crime of suicide. Instead this hardening is a giving up of man to their sin, that is to say, it is a withdrawing of the restraining grace which is stopping us from running farther away from the image of God and thus we become as our idols. This idea is found in Romans 1:24 where after teaching that what man has done is exchange the natural worship of the invisible God for images created by creatures themselves. Paul explains that because of this exchange of truth for lies God gives man up for the exchange of the natural to the unnatural. In the case of Pharaoh, God gave him up and withdrew His restraining grace and therefore Pharaoh fell deeper into tyranny and senseless hatred for the Israelites out of pride and lust for power over this people, not becoming less able to believe the gospel, but becoming less like humanity through more sin. In Pharaoh’s case this hardening was not given so that God could damn him to hell and therefore manifest His glory in justice, but as the text cited states in Exodus 9:15-16 God instead of wiping out Pharaoh and his kingdom quickly raised him up to a place of power, and waited so that Pharaoh would in his craze for power and dominance chase down the Israelites and so be swallowed up by the sea that God might show His might and power that all would know that the God of the Hebrews reigns over all kings and all creation. If we are to take this text of the raising up of Pharaoh as a creation of his person then it would not give proper place to the context which demands that we read this as relating to Pharaoh’s withstanding God’s plagues.
The last piece of this text to be considered for the purpose of understanding God’s electing will in the salvation of sinners is V. 19-23. In this text Paul addresses the common objection of fairness. The objection is twofold here. In V. 19 the accusation of fatalistic determinism arises. In V. 20 There is the objection of a setting up for failure. These two objections are excuses that seek to ‘excuse’ the sinner of culpability. For both of these objections Paul’s response is the same. It is to remind them who they are and who God is. What is being said here by the objector is that God cannot hold sinners accountable for their lack of faith if He did not determine that they would believe, in His orchestration of all things. In understanding the Biblical teaching of God’s immutability in this way they not only go beyond what the Scriptures say and into the realm of philosophical speculation but they also, in turn, deny other plain teachings of the Scriptures regarding human responsibility for sin. The objectors in both V. 19 and V. 20 are essentially accusing the Bible of self-contradiction. In order to determine if there truly is a contradiction we need to interpret Scripture through Scripture rather than through unbridled reason. Job 42:2 asserts God’s immutable will in a way that reflects primarily the simple omnipotence of God. If God purposes for something to happen it will happen either directly or indirectly. 1 John 3:20 states quite simply that God knows all things. This would not be all things if it was to the exclusion of all future things. Psalm 115:2-3 teaches us that God superintends all things so as to be according to His purpose. When it seems as though God is not present, even when things seem to go against the best interests of His covenant community God is present in the situation and He is working all things according to His will. There is not a single thing that comes to pass that God has not foreseen and either passively allowed or mended to His purpose. This is seen in the case of Joseph being taken to Egypt as a slave. Genesis 50:20 tells us that there are two parties that meant for this action to be according to their purpose. Joseph’s brothers intended for this to be done according to evil, to spurn Jacob. Yet God, in His wisdom and omnipotent and immutable will used this for the purpose of sustaining the nations amid a terrible famine so as to preserve His people and glorify Himself. We see that even in God’s passive allowance of this evil to befall Joseph God did not passively permit it to occur so that He would have something to punish but He permitted it solely for the purpose of goodness. We must be careful to not misunderstand prescience for causal will. The Scriptures in no wise say that God has a causal will towards anything except for the salvation of man which is seen clearly as the source of our regeneration in Ephesians 2:5. God cannot will anything evil nor cause anything evil. This corresponds to the way we should respond to those who bring the charge of V. 20, a creation into an evil nature. God did not create us in this way. God created man perfect and in His image. He said of this creation that it was good. The taint of sin came from outside of God, as sin itself is a lack of conformity to the image and character of God. James 1:13 proclaims to us that God cannot even tempt us to sin. Much less then can God be the author or primary cause of sin. This text however in V. 20 is not a statement of God’s sovereign orchestration of all things, it is in the context of the texts referenced, namely Isiah 29:16 and 45:9, a reminding of man who they are, that they cannot influence God’s decision to elect and to save. 29:16 especially hammers on this point. Using this reference as well as that of 45:9 Paul is saying, would you assume that you can mold He who molded you so as to influence Him so much as to gain His favour? The favour of God in the case of fallen man is not something that we can gain through the influence of our good works or our free choice, it is rather a casual grace that allows us to grasp God’s promises in faith and so gain Christ’s merited favour for ourselves. This reference to the clay which the molder uses to form vessels is a fallen clay, and so, with the fall being the entire fault of the sinner Paul asks the question, who are you to demand that God shows mercy to you rather than your fully merited destruction? This is the same teaching that Paul gave us in V. 11; whether God shows mercy to one rather than another has nothing to do with ethnicity, for Jacob and Esau were brothers, it has nothing to do with works, for they were not born when this election occurred, and lastly it has nothing even to do with future faith, as without this causal election they could not even exercise such a thing. From this we see and can say with full confidence, men reprobate themselves through the fall, but God elects to salvation. Out of this lump of fallen humanity, God does not elect all men. It is from this point that men are asking Paul why God has left them this way. At this point in V. 22-33 Paul gives the answer. In V. 22 it says that there are vessels prepared for wrath. This preparation for wrath happens through the hardening which first begins with the depravity and concupiscence from original sin which belongs to all men since the fall by no other fault than their own and in its most heightened form ends with God withdrawing His restraining grace. In V. 23 it is said that God prepares vessels for mercy. It is, therefore, man who reprobates himself but God who elects the fallen sinner to glory in Christ. The answer is this; God’s wrath remains on certain vessels that have prepared themselves for destruction, but God prepares other vessels for divine mercy. God’s patience with unregenerate man in order to show justice in judgement is not a desire for glorification through judgement alone. But as we see from V. 23 it is “in order to” show mercy in salvation. This mercy is not just mercy but it is deep and rich mercy that enters us into a state of glory, to become like Christ at the resurrection out of a union with Him even though we were exponentially underserving of such favour. Yet this mercy cannot exist without a normative punishment for wrongdoing. From this, we see that even in God’s passive will to leave sinners in their depravity is not for that of destruction, but ultimately it is for mercy, for good.
The message of Romans 9, therefore, is not “because God”. It is a chapter that says to us “but God”. All men are under the condemnation of God by their own hand, but God has elected a people to salvation by His grace through faith in Christ. This is God’s purpose of election in V. 11, that God would show mercy where there was nothing merited but judgment. That God would give life where there was nothing but death.
This reading of Luther and those who followed him came away from this text with the same conclusion. The Solid Declaration, one of the documents within the Book of Concord says of this specific issue; “God’s preordination to salvation… does not apply to both the godly and the evil, but instead only to the children of God, who are chosen and predestined to eternal life.” The Lutherans differentiated between God’s prescience and His decretal will. In the book, Confessing the Gospel, this idea is expanded upon with the use of article XI.6-7 of the same document. It reads; “Foreknowledge ‘sees and knows everything before it happens’ and it ‘applies to all creatures, good and evil… it is not, however, the origin or cause of evil.’ Election foresees but is also the cause.” As we can see from this, the Lutherans were asserting the idea that the decretal will of God, at least in the way that we use it as a theological term, refers only to that which He puts His hand to. This definition of God’s will can only look at will as a force of active participation. Evil then in this system develops on its own, entirely independent of God or His will. The only interaction that God has with evil is in His active restraining or conquering of it. The result of this is that when we think of reprobation, we are not looking at something that God designed for His glory but we are looking at a work entirely of man. When we look at the hardening of one’s heart we are looking at a lack of God’s restraining grace. This is not an active work of God but is the lack of the active work of God, and therefore it too is a work entirely of man. Perhaps the clearest statement on the Lutheran understanding of election and predestination is found in Pieper’s systematic work: “Clearly and emphatically Scripture teaches that Christians owe their whole Christian state in time, specifically also their faith, to their eternal election; but with the same clarity and emphasis Scripture also excludes the thought that the unbelief of the lost can be traced to a predestination to damnation.” Having this clear statement on election and predestination in the Solid Declaration has promoted Lutheran unity on this doctrine where the Reformed lack it. Its goal was to keep both synergism and double predestination at bay and has up until now and into the foreseeable future succeeded in that aim.
When Calvin arrived on the Protestant landscape he came with a different understanding of how God’s sovereignty related to His providence. Calvin understood the providence of God not only to be a sustaining, restraining, and working within things a good end, but primarily to be an orchestrating or designing the course of all things in reality toward His glorification. Calvin Himself puts it this way; “everything that happens depends on His determination.” Here we see a clear difference from that of the Lutheran opinion and Calvin’s. Calvin is asserting that there is nothing in reality that God has put His stamp of approval on. This does not mean that God causes things per se but through His decree and orchestration of these things God has designed reality to be such as it is for the purpose of His glorification. This is clearly drawn from the idea of Romans 9:22. In Calvin’s mind, if something happened, it was because God had a direct reason for it to happen according to His glorification. We see that Calvin even took this idea of the universal gravitation towards the glorification of God through both election and reprobation in the creation of man. Calvin says on the creation of individuals regarding this manner; “we call predestination God’s eternal counsel by which He has determined what He wishes to with each and every person for He does not create them all in like condition, but appoints some to eternal life and others to eternal damnation. This, according to the end for which a person has been created, we say that He has been predestined to death or life.” In this portion of the text, Calvin seems to state that individuals are created for the purpose of election or predestination. This is not something done in light of the fall but it is the very purpose and end of their creation. If it is true that God created reprobates for the purpose of destruction which is clearly being taken from 9:17, then man could not be seen as a homogenous entity that God created for unity with Himself, but rather two entities. Reprobates, whose purpose is to rebel against God and burn for eternity and the elect whose purpose is to show God’s mercy in His saving of them. Calvin phrases the reason for reprobation in this manner; “entry into life is denied those whom He wishes to abandon to perdition.” While this statement rightly asserts that the reprobates were already in perdition when the decrees were manifest, Calvin is still phrasing this in a way that points at an active participation in the reprobation of man. God cannot deny somebody something if they are neither asking for it nor deserving of it. In saying first, God created them for reprobation and then one page later to assert that God denied them life by leaving them in their sin brings a problematic connection to the purpose of the universe from creation and its relation to the fall of man and the creation of sin. Calvin then states that he understands Paul to reinforce this understanding of a creation for destruction when he says; “Having raised the question of whether God is unjust he does not argue that God repaid Esau according to his sinfulness… but instead, he offers a very different solution, which is that God raises up the reprobate so that in them He might magnify His glory.” Calvin’s interpretation, therefore, is that as God gives no reason to His charges of injustice other than His pleasure, He makes reprobation a thing caused by God. He makes this clear in stating this about Paul’s response; “it is a warning to us to look for no cause whatsoever outside His will.” This position that Calvin is espousing can only be held properly if one distinguishes between an active will of God in which He causes things either directly or indirectly, and a passive will of God wherein He approves of things caused by man for reason of their alignment with His purpose, similarly to the Lutheran distinction between will and prescience. While the double predestination position still reigns as the normative position of Reformed churches it does so with a softened nuance in language that lends itself between the wording of the Lutherans as well as that of Calvin, seeing reprobation a passing over of an already fallen man, and only asserting election as a thing caused by God.
