THE JUSTICE OF GOD’S ELECTION
Romans 9:14-33
|
Now available in book form at
Redeemer Publishing |
Ancient
paganism thought of each god as bound to his worshipers by bonds of
self-interest, because he depended on their service and gifts for his
welfare. Modern paganism has at the back
of its mind a similar feeling that God is somehow obliged to love and help us,
little though we deserve.” (J.I. Packer, Knowing God,
Pg 119). The
difficulty that most people have with the doctrines of election and
predestination is not the lack of Biblical passages dealing with the
subject. The Old and New Testaments are
replete with statements that God had chosen and elected and predestined. The
problem that most have with this doctrine is how we deal with all of the
implications which this doctrine raises.
Chief among these difficulties is the question of the justice of divine
election. How is God to be considered as
just and righteous if He arbitrarily sends some people to hell and allows
others into heaven? The
theological term for this question is THEODICY.
It comes from a joining of two Greek words. a. Theos
is the word for “God.” b. Dike is the word
for “righteous.” The
question of Theodicy is a question of the righteousness of God. This has been the central theme of the entire
epistle to Romans.
THE
QUESTION PRESENTED What
shall we say then? There is no injustice
with God, is there? May it never be!
(Romans 9:14). The question of verse 14 is worded in such a way as
to expect a negative answer. Notice
the question. Is there any injustice
with God? It is the justice and the
righteousness of God which is being questioned here. This
question arises from the previous verses.
Is God just in choosing Isaac and not Ishmael? Is God just in choosing to love Jacob and
hate Esau? Is God just in choosing A
similar question will be raised in verse 19 when Paul asks the question, “If
God has determined our actions, then how can He find fault in us and judge us?” Before
we look at the answer to these questions, I want you to notice something. These two objections which Paul brings up
would never have arisen if we were not meant to understand that the choice of
election rests with God. If Paul had
been teaching that God merely looks down the corridors of time to see what men
will choose and then elects them on the basis of their own decision, then there
would be no basis for the question of whether God is just in choosing certain
men. The
very fact that God’s justice in election is questioned in this passage points
to the fact that election originates and is based only in God. Paul’s doctrine of election raises this
objection. I would suggest that any view
concerning election which does not give rise to this question is an improper
view of election. If we come to a proper
view of election, then this objection concerning God’s justice will always
arise. How
do we answer the question? Is God
unjust? Paul retorts, “May it never
be! Absolutely not!” But
if God is absolutely just and righteous, then why is He able to choose some and
not choose others? Why isn’t this
unrighteous? The answer is found in the
following verses. THE
SOVEREIGN MERCY OF GOD For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” (Romans
9:15). The
answer is seen in the sovereign mercy of God.
It is because God is God. He is
absolutely free to act according to the attributes of His own character. Paul illustrates this principle with a quote
from the Old Testament. He
takes us back to the And
He said, “I Myself will make all My goodness pass before you, and will proclaim
the name of the Lord before you; and I will be gracious to whom I will be
gracious, and will show compassion on whom I will show compassion.” (Exodus
33:19). Moses
has been pleading for the forgiveness of the people. God responds by declaring that He is free to
decide toward whom He shall be merciful.
There is a principle here. It is
that the doctrine of election is based upon the mercy of God. For God to choose some to salvation is for Him
to show mercy toward those individuals. God
showed that kind of mercy toward God
is not under any obligation to show mercy to anyone. Prayer does not even obligate God to show
mercy. Nothing can dictate to God toward
whom He must show mercy. There is no
injustice in this. Neither is there any
injustice in God’s withholding mercy from those whom He has not chosen. If
ten people owed me money and I chose to forgive the debt of three of them, bust
still required the other seven to pay their debt, I would not be unjust. In the same way, there is no injustice in God
being merciful to some and not being merciful to others. You
might protest that this is unfair. To do
so, you would be implying that God is under some obligation to treat all men
equally. This is not true. God is not obligated to treat all men equally
and He does not treat all men equally. Some
men have IQ’s of 130 while others are lower in intelligence. Some are born into wealthy homes while some
are poor by birth. Some have very long
life spans while some die very young in life.
Some have great athletic ability while some are 97 pound weaklings. It has been said that if all men are created
equal, then some are more equal than others. We
are not treated equally by God. God is
not obligated to treat anyone equally and there is no injustice in this. Because He is the Creator, he has the prerogative
to create His creatures in any way He desires. THE
BASIS OF ELECTION The
fact of election is undeniable to those who read and believe the Bible. What is then argued by people is the question
of the basis of election. On what basis
has God chosen some to salvation? There
are some schools of thought that teach God elected some to salvation based upon
what He foreknew they would determine.
This would make election based upon their decision. Paul teaches something quite different. 1. The Principle Stated. In verse 16, Paul draws a conclusion from the fact
that God is sovereign in the bestowal of His mercy. The conclusion is introduced by the words “so
then.” The conclusion concerns the basis
of God’s election. So
then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God
who has mercy. (Romans 9:16). God’s election is not based upon the will of man. God did not look down the corridors of time
to see what man will choose and then grant mercy on the basis of what man’s
decision would be. Election is not based
upon what man wills.
Neither is election based upon what man does. It is not based upon any of his good works,
his morality, his ethics, or anything else that he does. It is not even based upon man’s faith. God is completely free to show mercy on
whomever He chooses to show mercy. 2. The Principle Illustrated: The Case of Pharaoh. Paul now goes on to illustrate this point in the story
of Pharaoh, the king of For
the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I raised you up, to
demonstrate My power in you, and that My name might be
proclaimed throughout the whole earth.” (Romans 9:17). You remember the story. Pharaoh was the king of This is astounding when we realize that Pharaoh’s
program was the subjugation of the people of God. He resorted to infanticide to bring this
about. He had Hebrew male children put
to death (mandatory post-birth abortions).
He was directly opposed to God.
And yet, it was God who had chosen Pharaoh and who had placed him on the
throne of God chose to raise up
Pharaoh, to harden his heart, and then to bring him to ruin so that God might
be glorified. Here is Paul’s point.
It is not Pharaoh who wills or Pharaoh who runs, but God! This brings us to a new conclusion. It is presented in verse 18. 3. A New Conclusion:
Mercy & Hardening. So
then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens
whom He desires. (Romans 9:18). Paul’s new conclusion is again introduced by the
phrase “so then.” It is a conclusion
based upon the two previous illustrations of a. God has mercy on whom He desires. We have already seen this principle in the case of b. God hardens whom He desires. This conclusion is based upon the case of Pharaoh to
which Paul has just referred. It is
often argued that Pharaoh hardened his own heart and that God was not the
initiator of this hardening process. We can turn to passages in Exodus which say both that
God hardened Pharaoh’s heart and also that Pharaoh hardened his own heart. It is frequently maintained that God did not
harden Pharaoh’s heart until he had first hardened his own heart. Thus the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart is not
seen to be God’s initial doing, but Pharaoh’s. This passage teaches just the opposite. Paul makes it very clear that Pharaoh’s
decision to harden his own heart ultimately came from God. The whole point that Paul is making is that
God works and chooses and hardens and has mercy according to His own will. He is the instigator of His plan. This is confirmed in the Old Testament
account when the Lord revealed His plan to Moses. And
the Lord said to Moses, “When you go back to Egypt, see that you perform before
Pharaoh all the wonders which I have put in your power; but I WILL HARDEN HIS
HEART so that he will not let the people go.” (Exodus 4:21). God told Moses that He would harden Pharaoh’s
heart. For us to maintain that God was
only a secondary source of this hardening process would be to attribute the
actions of God to Pharaoh. The fact that it was God who was the initiator of this
hardening process is evidenced by the objection that Paul raises concerning
God’s righteous judgment of Pharaoh. THE
QUESTION OF GOD’S RIGHTEOUS JUDGMENT You
will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who
resists His will?” (Romans 9:19). There
is a difference between the question which is asked in verse 14 and the
question which is asked here. The
difference is illustrated in the chart below:
Here
is the question which Paul raises. How
can God hold men responsible for their disobedience when it is God who hardens
their hearts? How can God judge Pharaoh
for sinning when Pharaoh is acting according to God’s divine plan? If God is responsible for hardening Pharaoh’s
heart, and if it is impossible for Pharaoh to resist the will of God, then how
can God judge him for what he has done?
Why does God still find fault with Pharaoh? This
is a very relevant question. We could
ask, “If it is God who has chosen certain men to believe and to be saved, and
if he has hardened other men against the gospel, then how can
He direct his wrath and anger and condemnation against those who are
hardened? The
usual response of a Christian when he is presented with this objection is to
back off and explain that God has merely chosen men on the basis of what He
knew they would believe. By doing so,
the well-meaning Christian is seeking to “take God off the hook” so that He
will not be seen to be responsible for sin.
However, to do so is to take God down off His throne and to treat Him as
a creature instead of recognizing Him as the sovereign Creator. Paul
takes a very different approach to this question. We can describe his approach both in the
negative as well as in the positive. 1. Paul does not back off of what he has taught. He does not try to soften his teaching nor does he
feel the need to clarify or defend what he has previously taught with regard to
election. Don’t miss this!
The question is only valid if the premise is valid. The premise of the
question is that God is sovereign, and that He does choose to save some but not
others. If the premise was wrong, then Paul would have corrected it here and
now. But he does not correct the
premise. This further confirms that Paul is teaching the doctrine of individual
election. 2. Paul indicts the questioner for talking back to God. The question and the questioner are out of order. It is a question which man has no right to
ask. We cannot approach God as though He
were an equal or as if He had to answer to us.
He is under no obligation to give us any answers at all. This is graphically illustrated to us in the
book of Job. You remember the story of Job. It begins with a glimpse into heaven when Satan
comes and offers up a challenge. As a
result, the Lord allows him to literally bring the roof down upon Job. For the next 37 chapters, Job goes through
all sorts of torment and the only comfort that he has is the poor advice of his
wife and three friends. At the end of
that time, God comes to Job and says to him essentially the same thing that
Paul says here in these verses. “Who are
you to answer back to God?” And the
remarkable thing is that Job is never given any of the reasons for the
sufferings that he has experienced. That
does not mean that the reasons are absent, but Job is not privy to them and God
is under no obligation to give them. Paul
points out this same truth and then He backs it up with an Old Testament
illustration. THE
ILLUSTRATION OF THE POTTER AND THE CLAY On
the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded
will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it? Or
does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one
vessel for honorable use and another for common use? (Romans 9:20-21). The
charge was that God could not find fault with sinners if it is He who has mercy
and if it He who hardens. Paul does not
argue the charge. He does not try to
defend God. God needs no defense. God is not on trial. It is man who is on trial. And it is the height of human arrogance for a
man to try to pass judgment upon the righteousness of God. Paul
does not answer the charge. Instead he
repels the charge. He proclaims that the
objection is out of order. He states
that it is not a valid objection. He
proclaims that man has no right to make a charge against God. For a man to try to judge God is for him to
claim that his standard of justice is higher than God’s standard. Paul
illustrates this by using a familiar Old Testament example. It is the example of a potter and his clay. You
turn things around! Shall the potter be
considered as equal with the clay, that what is made should say to its maker,
“He did not make me”; or what is formed say to him who formed it, “He had no
understanding”? (Isaiah 29:16). Woe
to the one who quarrels with his Maker - an earthenware vessel among the
vessels of earth! Will the clay say to
the potter, “What are you doing?” Or the
thing you are making say, “He has no hands”? Woe
to him who says to a father, “What are you begetting?” Or to a woman, “To what are you giving
birth?” (Isaiah 45:9-10). But
now, O Lord, Thou art our Father, we are the clay, and Thou our potter; and all
of us are the work of Thy hand. (Isaiah 64:8). Then
I went down to the potter’s house, and there he was, making something on the
wheel. But
the vessel that he was making of clay was spoiled in the hand of the potter; so
he remade it into another vessel, as it pleased the potter to make. Then
the word of the Lord came to me saying, 6 “Can I not, O house of The
illustration is of a potter sitting at his wheel. He takes a portion of clay from his pile and
he fashions a beautiful vase to be sold at the market for a vast sum. Then from that same lump of clay, he might
take another portion of clay and mold a basin to be used by a farmer for
feeding his pigs. No
one would ever think of charging the potter with injustice because he had not
given equal treatment to both lumps of clay.
No one can question the potter’s right to do with the lump of clay as he
will. He is the owner of the clay. He is the molder of the pot. He is free to do with it according to his
wishes. The
principle is the same here. As the
sovereign Creator, God can do anything with His creation that He desires. He is free to act as He chooses. Now
we admit that man is not the same as clay.
Man has emotions and feelings and he is an intelligent creature. But he is still a creature. He was created. Thus
God is free to make from that lump a Moses who will lead the Israelites out of VESSELS OF MERCY AND VESSELS OF WRATH Paul
has just given us the illustration of the potter. In that illustration, he suggested that there
are two kinds of pots - one for honorable use and one for dishonorable
use. Now he takes that illustration one
step further. 1. Vessels of Wrath. What
if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known,
endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? (Romans
9:22). This verse opens with a conditional clause. It is a first class condition. It assumes the truth of the statement which
it proceeds. We
could translate it “since.” This is not
merely a possible hypothesis, but an established fact. From the lump of humanity there are some who have been
designed as “vessels of wrath.” These
vessels of wrath have been prepared for the purpose of destruction. We call this the doctrine of
reprobation. Their destiny is
destruction. 2. Vessels of Mercy. What
if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known,
endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? 23 And He
did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He
prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews
only, but also from among Gentiles. (Romans 9:22-24). Why would God allow vessels of wrath? Verse 23 tells us the reason. This verse tells us why the sinner
continually goes through this life without divine judgment being poured out on
him. It tells us why God allows sin to
continue in the world. It is so that God
might make known the riches of His glory upon the vessels of mercy which He
also created. It is for our benefit.
It is so that He might save us from the very worst and then freely give
to us the very best so that, in the end, He might be glorified. Peter says it this way: The
Lord is not slow about his promise, as some count slowness, but is patient
toward you, not wishing for any to perish, but for all to come to repentance.”
(2 Peter 3:9). This verse says that God wishes for all to come to
repentance. Notice to whom the “all”
refers. It is to the same group toward
whom God is patient. It refers to “YOU.” Peter is speaking to believers. He is speaking to those who are among the
elect. He is speaking to those who have
been chosen by God. This election has
been manifested by the fact that these have come to faith in Jesus Christ. In effect, Peter is saying that God is being
patient toward those whom He has chosen because He is not willing that any of
them should perish. Peter concludes that he wants believers to “regard
the patience of our Lord to be salvation” (2 Peter 3:15). When we look at the patience of the Lord and
realize that He is withholding His judgment of sin, we are not to think that
God does not care about sin. Rather, the
continuance of sin and suffering in the world is for our benefit and our
salvation. If God had stopped all sin
and all suffering 100 years ago, we would not have been saved. The fact that He has not done so is a sign of
our salvation. Paul says the same thing here in Romans. He says that God is enduring “with much
PATIENCE vessels of wrath” (9:22). This is why
Christ has not yet returned. He is
withholding His judgment until all whom He has chosen are saved so that none
should perish, but that all should come to repentance. There will be no objects of mercy who
will be lost. God knows those who are
His even before they know Him. And He
has promised not to lose any. THE
TESTIMONY OF THE PROPHETS If
it is true that there are none of God’s chosen people who will be lost, then
how do we explain the case of Paul
has already given a partial answer in verse 6 when he said that “they are
not all 1. The Promise of the Salvation of the Gentiles. As He
says also in Hosea, “I will call those who were not My
people, ‘My people,’ and her who was not beloved, ‘Beloved.’” “And
it shall be that in the place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my
people,’ there they shall be called sons of the living God.” (Roman 9:25-26). Paul quotes from two separate passages in the book of
Hosea (Hosea 2:23 and 1:10). His purpose
is to show that God promised in the Old Testament to make those who were “not
God’s people” to become “God’s people.”
Hosea wrote in a day of apostasy. The 10 tribes of the northern kingdom of 2. The Promise of the Preservation of the Jews. Isaiah
cries out concerning Israel, “Though the number of the sons of And
just as Isaiah foretold, “Unless the Lord of Sabaoth
had left to us a posterity, we would have become like
Paul now turns to Isaiah. This passage promises that there shall always
be a remnant. This is a promise of
hope. It is a promise that, even though
not all Apart from the grace of Do you see the principle? Man without God always degenerates. It is only by God’s gracious election that
some men are saved. 3. The Promise of What
shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained
righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith; 31 but
Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by
works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone, 33
just as it is written, “Behold, I lay in Paul now presents a general contrast between Jews and
Gentiles as they relate to the righteousness of God.
The righteousness which the Gentiles attained is the
one which Paul set forth in Romans 3. It
is the righteousness which is imputed through faith in Christ. The irony is that the Gentiles were not all that
concerned with righteousness in the first place. It was the Jews whose very culture consisted
of a search for righteousness. The
problem is that they could never manage to attain that for which they sought.
It seems a bit unfair.
The Gentiles stumble onto righteousness with no effort at all. Where did the Jews go wrong? The answer is seen in verse 32. They stumbled. The cause of their stumbling was a stone. Paul combines Isaiah 8:14 with Isaiah 28:16, both of
which speak of a “stone of stumbling.”
For those who trust in Jesus as the Messiah, they find Him to be their
rock of salvation. But to those who reject
Him, He is a stone of stumbling. What kind of a “stone” is Jesus to you? Is He the rock of your salvation, or is He a
stone of offense? Is Jesus the basis of
your stumbling or the source of your salvation? In
closing, let me point out several truths which are taught from this passage: • The
Word of God is not frustrated by history, but it is fulfilled in history. We asked the question in verse 6, “Did God’s Word fail
because • Paul’s
use of the Old Testament teaches us that the Old Testament is relevant for
today. He takes the Old Testament
Scriptures and applies them to God’s present working in the church. There is a popular teaching in the American church
today known as Dispensationalism. This
teaches that the church is separate and distinct from • Return to Stevenson Bible Study Page | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
