A. Introduction
1. The doctrine of election wasn't invented by Augustine, or John Calvin, or Jonathan Edwards. It is presented explicitly throughout Scripture but, "like every truth about God, the doctrine of election involves mystery, and it sometimes stirs controversy." That may be the understatement of this sermon series! Most believers do not disagree over the fact of election, but there is a great variety of teaching about the implications of election. How does (did) God choose His elect? When does (did) He decide? What is the role of the free will of men and women in this election? Do we have to say "Yes" to God? Do we have to do anything? Can we say, "No"? Can we change our minds at some later date?
2. Having begun a discussion of election in chapter eight, Paul in Romans 9 continues with an exhaustive study of it, offering the history of Israel as proof.
a. God chose A __ __ __ __ out of all the people on earth.
b. God chose I __ __ __ __ over I __ __ __ __ __ __.
c. God chose J __ __ __ __ over E __ __ __.
d. In fact, Paul would say, "The Called" -- the people He reconciles to Himself -- is not a group
made up of every physical descendant of Isaac, but a r __ __ __ __ __ __ of people within that vast group.
(1) "The right to be children of God and heirs of his promises does not depend upon the mere accident of birth but upon the action and divine will in accordance with the divine word. The promise is the important matter, not mere physical birth. [This] also illustrates the fact that while the promises were made to Israel, God does not disregard his promises when he determines to accept some and to reject others from among those who are Israelites merely by natural descent.
Therefore, the promises of God to the nation of Israel are not being broken even though Israelites are being rejected for their unbelief and Gentiles are being saved through their faith in the Savior whom God has sent. Some Israelites are being saved. Israel's rejection is not complete; but they are not all Israel, that are of Israel. (Romans 9:6)
(2) John 3:16-18 [ NKJV ]
For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. He who believes is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
3. All Christians, whatever their "spin" on the details of it, rejoice in their election by God. It is the "shadow" side of election that really sticks in our craw. The logic goes like this: "If God has, in fact, chosen some, then He has also, by not choosing others, rejected them, knowing full well that the consequence of His rejection is eternity in the torments of hell. How unfair! The God I worship would never do such a thing!"
a. The last part of this soliloquy is refuted by the text of Romans 9, which speaks for itself. God did choose Isaac of Ishmael. We can live with this truth because, according to the biblical record, God saw to it that Ishmael and his mother were taken care of, even if they didn't inherit the promise (see Genesis 21:1-21). But God also chose Jacob and quite clearly rejected Esau. Paul's quotation from Malachi 1:2-3 startles our sensitivities and violates our standards of justice and fair play. Why would He do such a thing?
The answer -- the only one available to us in all of Scripture -- is contained in v.11:
...that the p __ __ __ __ __ __ of God in e __ __ __ __ __ __ __ might stand.
(1) The Greek rendered here as "purpose" is prothesis, the same one Paul used in Romans 8:28 concerning ...those who have been called according to [God's] purpose.
(2) The Greek word for "stand" (mene) means "to remain" or "to endure." The reason God chooses Jacob and rejects ("hates") Esau is not because He is arbitrary or unjust, but in order that His eternal p __ __ __ __ __ __ will r __ __ __ __ __ "on course" as time unfolds.
(3) As if this were not enough for us to digest, Paul is quick to remind us in the same verse that God's election of Jacob and rejection of Esau was not based in any way on the merit of the younger twin or the lack of merit in Esau, since the choice was made before they were born. This leads us into even deeper doctrinal waters: the matter of p __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __. The Bible record "vindicates" God in His sovereign choice of Jacob in that Esau "despised" his birthright and was, in fact, a common, profane and thoroughly-dislikable character. This suggests to some that God use His divine foreknowledge to know what kind of cad Esau would turn out to be and, making a small but profound cosmic "adjustment," avoided the problem before it became one, choosing Jacob instead. Could this be the way in which God "elects" all His children? Did He, before the dawn of Creation, look down through the tunnels of time and space and thereby foreknow the ones who would say "Yes" and the ones who would say "No"? This is how many so-called "evangelical" Christians interpret the doctrine of election, and it gives them great comfort.
"At this point we find ourselves in a maelstrom of theories 'Of Providence, Foreknowledge, Will, and Fate, Fixt Fate, free will, foreknowledge absolute,' as Milton put it. The idea of predestination has always had an unfair ring to it, and particularly the idea of double predestination, which teaches that before the foundation of the world God determined who would be saved and would be damned. With regard to the latter doctrine it must be said, at least from a NT perspective, that double predestination is not as compelling theologically as it may appear logically. At root, predestination is simply God's way of assuring that his gracious will in restoring creation to glory does not fail, i.e., that God's purpose in election might stand. In the present context Paul is not discussing the eternal salvation of individuals, but God's purposeful choices in history from Abraham to Christ. The question is how God separated the thread of Israel, through which he would fulfill his promises, from the fabric of all the nations. It was to that end the God chose Jacob and rejected Esau. The intent is functional rather than eschatological. The question is how God operates in history rather than what is the final fate of individuals or nations." - James R. Edwards: Romans (Volume 6, New International Biblical Commentary)
b. Predestination and election are presented throughout Scripture exclusively from a positive perspective. In Jesus Christ, the Bible says again and again, God is for the world. His wonderful grace, as received by faith, is the sole condition throughout history for the salvation of the individual and the sovereign will of God. His specific choices within history -- Isaac over Ishamael, Jacob over Esau, the Gentiles over the Jews (Romans 11) -- should be understood as intermediate against His eternal purpose for the salvation of sinful people and the reconciliation of all Creation back to Himself. Indeed, "the eternal destiny of all things lies solely with God, who is perfect love and perfect grace." (Edwards)
(1) 1 Timothy 2:1-4 [ NKJV ]
Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
(2) John 3:16 [ TLB ]
For God loved the world so much that he gave his only Son so that anyone who believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
(3) 2 Peter 3:8-9 [ NIV ]
But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.
B. TEXT: Romans 9:14-29
In these verses Paul continues his theodicy, his "vindication of God." In this passage he suggests a single question and responds to it with a series of answers. Paul has shown in the previous verses that throughout the history of Israel there had been going on a process of election by God. He has dealt with the objection that "God would never choose some and not all." Now he anticipates an even more troubling question: "If we accept the premise that God chooses some and rejects others, How could God possibly blame those who have "rejected" Him? Since their rejection of Him has its origin in God Himself, they are not at fault, are they? Is there unrighteousness with God?
Paul's answer: Certainly not!
1. In v.15 Paul again quotes from the Old Testament to make his point. Interestingly, he defends God's j __ __ __ __ __ __ by proclaiming God's m __ __ __ __. His purpose here is to direct our attention to what fuels God's election. It has nothing whatever to do with justice; it God dealt with mankind justly, no one could be saved (see Romans 1-3) . What lies behind the doctrine of election is the incredible mercy of God.
2. We are also reminded, however, that God's mercy is exercised according to His will. This is the
doctrine of the s __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ of God. Two passages from the book of Exodus are referenced by Paul in v.15-17, and he summarizes them in v.18.
Therefore He has m __ __ __ __ on whom He wills, and whom He wills He h __ __ __ __ __ __.
a. Paul's quote of Exodus 33:13 in v.15 should be read within its original context, Exodus 33:7-22.
b. In v.17 Paul refers to the confrontation between Moses and Pharaoh prior to the seventh plague (hail) God brought upon Egypt, as recorded in Exodus 9:13-17.
(1) This incident is a small part of the long, drawn-out process by which God raised up two men to accomplish His will for His people, Israel, to be brought up out of bondage in Egypt so that He could establish them in the Promised Land, thereby fulfilling His original covenant with Abraham.
(2) For some really fascinating reading, try Exodus 1:1 - 14:30, in which the entire saga unfolds. Chapters 7-12 records the confrontations between Moses, the man God had chosen to lead His people out of bondage, and Pharaoh, the man God had chosen to be an obstacle to them. Throughout this mighty conflict, the word "harden" appears again and again.
Sometimes Pharaoh hardened his heart.
ref: Exodus 7:14 and 22 Exodus 8:15, 19 and 32 Exodus 9:7 and 35 Exodus 13:15
Sometimes God hardened Pharaoh's heart. ref: Exodus 4:21
Exodus 7:3
Exodus 9:12
Exodus 10:1 and 20
Exodus 11:10
(3) How do we explain this? By the same means by which we now understand how and why Esau himself rejected his legal birthright and Jacob -- after much rebellion -- finally himself obeyed God's covenant. They -- as well as Moses and Pharaoh -- freely chose what God had before ordained for them. In Exodus 4:21 God give His promise to Moses that he will ultimately succeed in the struggle to obtain freedom for God's people. But God's promise includes that which will ensure Moses' success:
- He will provide mighty w __ __ __ __ __ __ for Moses to perform;
- He will h __ __ __ __ __ Pharaoh's heart.
"Over and over again, Pharaoh is moved by the momentous events that overtake him, only to revert, once the effects wear off, to his arrogant attitude of resistance to Jehovah's demands. Repeatedly, he hardens his heart until finally God hardens it for him. The history of Pharaoh's heart-hardening should be noted carefully, as should the Lord's explanation of His actions. God claims to have 'raised up' this man in order that His power might be made know.
It would be easy to assume by this statement that God had used Pharaoh as a pawn in a cosmic chess game, but neither our knowledge of God nor the study of Scripture warrant such an interpretation. It would appear in Pharaoh's case that God placed this man in his position of international visibility so that when his own hard-heartedness came into conflict with God's purpose he would become an international illustration of the futility of arrogantly opposing the purposes of God. If Pharaoh, with the same natural, sinful, egotistical attitude, had been born in a cabin and lived in seclusion, his sin would have been neither lesser nor greater. But in God's economy He placed this arrogant man in a position where his adamant refusal to accede to God's will would not only lead to his own downfall but also to as broad a demonstration of divine power as possible. The freedom to do this is incontrovertibly God's." - D. Stuart Briscoe: Romans (Volume 6: The Communicator's Commentary)
c. In v.19 Paul anticipates a "follow-up" question to the one set forth in v.14. If God pities some and hardens others, who can be blamed? Is not the one who is seen as "resisting" God's actually abiding by it is a way predetermined by God? And if this is the case, how can such a person be held morally accountable? He will address this question in v.19-29, and his answer will include further demonstration of the expanse of God's sovereign will.
3. The most natural way for us to understand the relationship between God and people is from a human perspective. It is necessary, however, that we sometimes understand it -- insofar as we are able -- from the divine perspective. In v.20-21 Paul invokes the classic "p __ __ __ __ __
and c __ __ __" argument. We must be careful in our understanding of this analogy. Paul is
using it to point to God's s __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __. Men and women are "clay" only in relation to God as "potter." To see the primary truth of the analogy as applying to mankind would be to suggest that man is a powerless lump of clay that an arbitrary God could mold whichever way he pleases, as his mood suits him. That this cannot be our interpretation is made clear in the early chapters of this letter, in which Paul clearly and correctly points to man's function as a "m __ __ __ __ agent," held fully responsible by and accountable God for his or her choices.
a In reference to Pharaoh, Paul is stating here that God, in his unassailable sovereignty, can take an arrogant, "hard-hearted" man, elevate him to a status of ruling authority, and let him live with the consequences of his own arrogant hard-heartedness, "giving him over," if you will, to his sin. (See Romans 1:18-32.)
b. "Paul's emphasis in this paragraph is that as the potter has the right to shape his clay into vessels for different purposes, so God has the right to deal with fallen humanity according to both his wrath and his mercy, as he has argued in verses 10-18. 'In the sovereignty here asserted,' writes Hodge, 'it is God as moral governor, and not God as creator, who is brought into view.' It is nowhere suggested that God has the right to 'create sinful beings in order to punish them,' but rather that he has the right to 'deal with sinful beings according to his good pleasure,' either to pardon or to punish them." - John Stott: Romans
4. In v.22-29 Paul moves to cinch his argument, expanding the scenario of two individuals, Moses and Pharaoh, to two "nations," the J __ __ __ and the G __ __ __ __ __ __ __. If God raised up Pharaoh, using his own arrogant obstinance to serve His greater purposes for Moses and the children of Israel, He can certainly raise up a people, using their own stubborn self-righteousness to serve His greater purpose for the elected Gentiles who would seize the opportunity brought about by the nation of Israel's failure to receive Jesus as Messiah and claim Him as their Saviour!
a. In God's economy there are "vessels of w __ __ __ __" and "vessels of m __ __ __ __," and both are put to work by Him as instruments of His salvific work in history. Even here there is a distinct bias in God's work toward mercy: the "vessels of wrath" are borne by God with much l __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __.
b. That this does not represent a change in God's plan is made clear in v.25-28, in which Paul again turns to Old Testament proof texts. Three profound truths are set forth in them. z
(1) God's c __ __ __ __ __ __ of a p __ __ __ __ __ for Himself has always had as its focus a r __ __ __ __ __ __ out of a greater whole. Israel's claim as a "national" people of God was their own invention.
(2) The salvation of even a tiny remnant is evidence of the g __ __ __ __ of God.
(3) Within God's sovereign will and according to His divine omniscience, Israel's "national" failure to choose Christ was always part of His greater plan to include in His elect both J __ __ __ and G __ __ __ __ __ __ __. An unmerciful god would have responded to Israel's violent rejection of Christ with another "Sodom and Gomorrah" holocaust. God's predetermined response was to, according to His own timetable, extend His grace to those who stood previously outside His presence.
C. Application
1. In our individual lives as God's people, we are often called upon to accept God's sovereignty over us. It is not difficult for us to acknowledge the sovereignty of God in a "general" sense. Of course He is sovereign; He is God! However, we have a much harder time accepting His sovereignty when it manifests itself in our lives in ways which are not in accordance with our own sense of timing, priority and propriety.
2. One of the objections raised by Christians to strict interpretations of the doctrines of election, predestination, and the sovereignty of God states that these doctrines tend to nullify our incentive to p __ __ __ and/or e __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ and remove the need for repentance.
a. If the incentive of the Christian to obey God's explicit commands for Christians to p __ __ __ and to p __ __ __ __ __ the g __ __ __ __ __ lies within our own logical reasons for doing so, perhaps such a case could be made. If God's expressed will that "none should p __ __ __ __ __, but that all be brought to r __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __" were made conditional in Scripture on our personal understanding of these doctrines, we could safely reach such a conclusion. But God's Word is clear in these matters.
(1) James 5:16b [ NKJV ]
The effective, fervent prayer of a righteous man avails much.
(2) Romans 10:14-16 [ NIV ]
How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!"
But not all the Israelites accepted the good news. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed our message?" Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ."
(3) Acts 17:24-31 [ NKJV ]
God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands. Nor is He worshipped with men's hands, as though He needed anything, since He give to all life, breath, and all things. And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and boundaries of their dwellings, so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; for in Him we live and move and have our being, as some of your own poets have said, 'For we are also His offspring.' Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man's devising. Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.
b. The Bible is filled with "Great Mysteries." Some God has seen fit to reveal, often through the apostle Paul. Others remain deep and mysterious, incompatible with human intellect, reason, and imagination. But God's will for the lives of Christians is not a mystery. He declares it openly. It is good -- even "fun" for some of us -- to deliberately think through difficult passages of Scripture. One of God's desires for His people is that we grow in grace and knowledge. Pursue the knowledge of God, cognitive as well as experiential, not for the purpose of being "puffed up" with a lot of religious facts, but to actively participate in your transformation into God's "New Creation," one who "walks by faith and not by sight;" one whose faith is "worked out" in humility, love and devotion; one whose life is an observable "living sacrifice," to the glory of God alone.
D I S C U S S I O N G U I D E
1. List the three characteristics of God named in today's text passage which direct His will and purpose.
2. Read Mark 3:1-6.
a. How is "hard-hearted" religion depicted in this passage?
b. What effect is this said to have had on Christ?
c. Do you think that God "hardened" their hearts? Why, or why not?
d. What lesson can we learn from this incident?
3. Read Mark 8:13-21.
a. How is this "hardened heart" scenario different from the one in Mark 6?
b. What is the effect of this kind of "hardened heart?"
c. How might this type of "hardened heart" be "softened?"
4. Paul's passionate burden for the Jews is understandable, given his own experience. Is it God's will that all believers have a "burden" for those who are "lost?" Explain your answer.
5. What people do you feel the strongest desire to reach with the gospel? Why?
6. What should the local church -- ours, in particular -- be doing about evangelism? Make some specific recommendations.
7. Should our church take a "stand" on doctrines like election, predestination, etc.? _______ Why, or why not?
