Post
by _Steve » Tue Apr 08, 2008 12:00 am
There I go being unclear again!
One point of clarification I should have made is that Paul, in Romans 9, is describing God's election of people like Jacob and Esau unconditionally for purposes related to their respective roles as heads of respective branches of the Abrahamic family. He is not "finding fault" (v.19) with Esau about anything (as he makes clear by the reference to the twins having done no good or evil). No punishment or harsh treatment is implied as being given to Esau (since he has done nothing wrong). He is just passed over in favor of his brother for the position under consideration. Esau was not alone, nor being singled-out for disapproval, in his being passed over for this honor. Every human being of that generation, except Jacob, was similarly passed over, but this is not said to be a punishment of anyone, nor does it have any ramifications for salvation. If God does not select me to be a king, that does not mean He is punishing me, but it is a special honor to the one who is selected.
That is why, when the seeming arbitrariness of God's choice of Jacob over Esau is being discussed, and Paul thinks this might be perceived as an injustice on God's part, he quotes God's words to Moses: "I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion" (Rom.9:14-15/ Ex.33:19).
This is in the context of raising up men to privilege, and there is no mention in this statement of anyone being punished. God had recently offered to destroy the rebellious Israelites and to confer to Moses the privilege of being the head of the whole nation, as Jacob had once been given (Ex.32:9), though He was denying Moses the requested privilege of seeing His full glory (Ex.33:18-19). "I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion." The statement only declares God's prerogative to bestow special favors as He wishes, without reference to the recipient's special merit. God is not making any claims (or raising the matter at all) of being free to eternally condemn anyone without reference to demerit.
It is essentially the same idea as that expressed in the parable, where the land owner gives every worker a fair and generous wage, but gives some the same wage for less work. Jesus anticipates the Jews (as Paul does here) complaining that God has been more generous toward certain others than toward themselves. God's answer: "Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with my own things?" (Matt.20:1-15). In other words, so long as I have not given anyone unjust treatment, I have every right to lavish special kindness on whomever I wish. It is the same thought in both places.
So where does the hardening of Pharaoh come into this (Rom.9:17-18)? Paul has not yet left the subject of God's raising up and bringing down men to and from special privilege—especially as leaders over Israel. Moses and Pharaoh illustrate the truth of Psalm 75:6-7—"For exaltation comes neither from the east nor from the west nor from the south. But God is the Judge: He puts down one [Pharaoh, as a case in point] and exalts another [e.g., Moses, who replaces Pharaoh as the leader of Israel]."
Pharaoh, is first said to have been raised up by God's sovereign choice—"For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, 'Even for this same purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you...'" (Rom.9:17; Ex.9:16). Nothing distinctively Calvinistic in this idea. It is a generic declaration of God's (not particularly Calvinistic) sovereignty, just like Daniel 2:21—"He removes kings and raises up kings."
Why is this mentioned in Paul's discussion? I believe it is the necessary set-up for the next declaration of Paul: "Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills [paraphrasing Ex.33:19, which he has already quoted in verse 15], and whom He wills, He hardens" (Rom.9:18).
The last line is not a quote from the Old Testament, but is Paul showing the contrast between the favor shown on Moses (as per the first half of the verse) and the disfavor shown on Pharaoh. But why bring up Pharaoh's being hardened? It seems like he could have been left out of the discussion altogether!
But wait, Paul is talking about Jacob being chosen over Esau and Moses being chosen over Pharaoh—in the capacity of national heads over Israel. I believe the unstated implication is that Jesus—like Jacob and like Moses—is God's choice to be the current, and permanent, head over the true Israel. Esau and Pharaoh represent rivals for that position, whom God has rejected in that role. As such, Esau and Pharaoh each, in their own way, represent any who claim national privilege in Israel apart from, or in opposition to God's choice of Jesus.
Paul is going to go on later in the discussion and tell us that the unbelieving Jews have been "hardened" (Rom.11:7, 25)—like Pharaoh! The interesting thing is that there is never any suggestion that hardening came upon Pharaoh (or upon the unbelieving Jews) without reference to their earlier choices. Neither Pharaoh nor Israel were "born hardened." They were hardened because of their prior evil lives. Hardening is simply the form that God's judgment on them took.
Where the objector (along with Calvinists) reads more into this than Paul says, is in their assumption that Pharaoh is the picture of every non-elect man, and Moses the model of every elect man (in terms of election for salvation), and that Paul is claiming that all non-elect men, just like Pharaoh, belong to a hardened class.
Thus, Paul's statement—"He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills, He hardens"—is mistakenly taken as a paradigm of all men (not the two "vessels" within Israel). It is treated as if Paul is saying, "There are two groups of men throughout history: 1) the unconditionally elect, upon whom God shows saving mercy, and 2) the non-elect, whom God unconditionally hardens for the purpose of damnation."
This assumption is fraught with difficulties. First, in that Paul gives no indication that he is making any kind of pronouncement about all men, viz., that all have either received the mercy or else have received the hardening (as if "hardening" were God's general treatment of all unbelievers, not just special cases, like Pharaoh).
Second, because the discussion thus far has not said a single word about the subject of anyone's individual salvation. Pharaoh may very well have ended up in hell, but it is not stated here or in Exodus. That is, the topic is never brought up for consideration. Likewise, we may safely assume that Moses is eternally saved, but that has not been mentioned here or in Exodus, either. This is not a topic that has been raised here.
I am well aware that, as Dr. White points out, the matter of the eternal salvation of individual Israelites is raised in Romans 9:1-5. But these verses only present the problem, and introduce the topic of the next three chapters. In eventually getting around to the question of why not all Israel is saved (eventually resolved in Rom.11:25-26), Paul begins (in 9:6ff) by mentioning features of Israel's history that are not directly related to anyone's personal salvation. He and Stephen take the same approach in their sermons in Acts. They begin by surveying salient high points of Israel's history (not specifically related to anyone's personal salvation), and they eventually bring the story up to date, confronting their hearers with the need to repent and be saved through Christ (see Acts 7 and Acts 13).
In any case, it is not a matter of dispute, but of plain observation, that nothing Paul has said about Jacob, Esau, Moses or Pharaoh has even raised the issues of their eternal salvation or damnation (In what sense could "the older shall serve the younger" have any relevance to eternal salvation?).
It is no coincidence that every "individual" mentioned in the passage happened to be an actual or potential titular head of Israel. It is in that capacity, not their capacity as representative individuals facing the personal, eternal judgment of God, that they are brought into the discussion.
Paul has just said, "He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills, He hardens." As we have seen, there is nothing in Romans 9:7-18 to indicate that Paul is discussing the eternal election of ordinary individuals to their respective eternal destinies. Yet the objector (like the Calvinist) reads this implication into what Paul has actually said.
The Jewish objector (perhaps not being particularly interested in correctly understanding Paul, but being more interested in finding fault), implies that Paul has suggested that every decision regarding each man's individual fate has been taken out of man's hands ("Who has resisted His will?"), which would suggest that there is no basis for God to punish the unbeliever ("Why does He still find fault?").
There are two implications in this objection (now being a bit repetitious of my previous post):
1) The misunderstanding by which the objector takes what Paul has said and extrapolates to the false view of meticulous providence (which indeed would remove free choice and responsibility from man); and
2) The underlying real objection to Paul's actual theme, namely, that God has chosen to exclude a portion of Israel, rather than simply to save them all. Paul uses the potter/clay analogy to correct this.
Here is what I see Paul doing with the potter/clay metaphor:
He goes back to imagery that originates in Isaiah and Jeremiah—probably with Jeremiah 18 primarily in view. In these Old Testament passages, God is likened to a potter, and Israel is His clay.
Paul says that the potter (God) has every right to do what Paul has described—namely to take the "one lump" of clay (Israel) and to separate that one lump into two vessels (or groups; the part of Israel who believes and the part that do not believe), and then to honor the one and not the other.
There is obviously no suggestion that God has decided on which specific persons will be in each "vessel", but He has simply divided Israel into two groups (Rom.9:21), one for honor (like Jacob) and the other for dishonor (like Esau).
In the following verse (22), individuals who belong to each of these respective vessels are themselves referred to as "vessels" of mercy and of wrath. This shift from the corporate concept of a vessel (the vesse l of honor and the vessel of dishonor) to the individual use of the term (vessels of wrath and vessels of mercy) is not unlike Paul's use (elsewhere) of the term "temple" sometimes as a reference to the individual believer's body, and sometimes as a reference to the corporate body of Christ. Paul shifts metaphors, sometimes, within the space of single sentence (e.g. Eph.2:19-20).
It should be noted that being a "vessel of wrath" and being a "vessel of mercy" are not references to inescapable fates determined for each individual by some pretemporal sovereign decree of God (indeed, the former are said to be something that God has had to "endure" or "tolerate"—v.22).
If this were the case, then one would have to assume that a "vessel of wrath" could never change categories and become a "vessel of mercy." Such an implication forms no part of Paul's discussion and is in conflict with his theology. In Ephesians 2:3, Paul says that he and his Christian readers were themselves once "children of wrath," a term for whose meaning there is no warrant to differentiate from that of "vessels of wrath." Yet Paul and his readers have now obtained mercy, and were surely in the category of "vessels of mercy." Paul has no concept of there being predetermined, unchangable consignments of individuals to one category or the other. He never teaches it, and, apparently, it never crossed his mind.
If we would ask on what basis an individual comes to be a "vessel of mercy," and to belong to the corporate "vessel of honor," we don't have to look far for answers.
God "has mercy on whom He wills," it is true, but upon whom does he "will" to have mercy? There is never a suggestion that the mercy of salvation comes without conditions—not in Romans 9; not anywhere. Jesus said, "Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy." Therefore, mercy comes to those who fit a certain description: they are merciful (cf. Matt.6:14-15; 18:34-35/ Mark 11:25-26/ James 2:13).
The Bible also informs us (once in the Old Testament, and twice in the New) that God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble. Thus, humbling oneself is said to be the prerequisite for receiving grace (Calvinism, strangely, suggests that the grace of regeneration is given to the proud—that is, to the unregenerate, who have not and can not humble themselves!).
Further, believing in Jesus is repeatedly declared to be the means of obtaining eternal life (John 3:15-16; 5:40; 6:40; 20:31). Since obtaining eternal life is another way of speaking of regeneration, it is clear that faith results in regeneration, not the reverse.
Also, loving Jesus is the prerequisite for God coming to inhabit a person (John 14:23).
In other words, there are things that the "vessel of wrath" must change in himself by which he may become a vessel of mercy. He must humble himself, adopt a merciful attitude, believe in and love Jesus. As anathema as this sounds to the Calvinist, it is plainly stated in the verses I have just presented. Of course, none of these things says a word about "works." Mercy, humility, faith and love are all attitudes, not "works" (a word that implies some degree of action, and, specifically, in Paul, wage-earning labor—Rom.4:4). Of course, they are attitudes that will issue in works, but they begin as conditions of the heart.
The Calvinist's theology compels him to assert, contrary to scripture, that a man is incapable of thus preparing his own heart to seek God, but the Bible frequently asserts the opposite. In every verse that speaks of the subject of preparing a man's heart, the agency is placed squarely upon the man possessing the heart (Ezra 7:10/ 2 Chron.12:14; 19:3/ Prov.16:1, 9). Only once does the Bible speak of God preparing man's heart, and in that place, it is said that He prepares the heart of the humble (Ps.10:17). Thus humilty is mentioned as a precondition for God's action.
That Paul's objector (Rom.9:19) is mistaken in implying that no one has resisted God's will is plain from the many passages in which the Bible speaks of people successfully doing just that (e.g., Isa.5:3-7; 66:3-4/ Ezek.33:11/ Hos.7:1/ Matt.23:37*/ Luke 7:30/ 1 Thess.4:3/ 2 Peter 3:9*/ Acts 17:30 w/Rev.2:21). The objector is certainly missing Paul's meaning in implying that no one successfully resists God's will.
The Calvinist, of course, would say that it is only the revealed will of God that is successfully resisted, but not the secret will expressed in God's decrees. There are numerous reasons to object to this explanation—not the least of which is the total absence in Paul's writings (including this passage) that such a secret will of God exists!
Well, I have gone far beyond the brief answer I set out originally to write here. I apologize for wearying the reader. However, I really am interested in making this matter clear enough for more people to understand. I may not have succeeded this time, any more than previously, but I needed to explain every detail in the attempt.
*If you are not among those who, like myself, see the Calvinist's explanation of these verses as desperate, then you may exclude them from consideration in this matter. However, I would urge you to look more carefully and critically at those explanations.
In Jesus,
Steve
, almost convinced!) tried to get other RMM people to listen to you. I've known Michael Patton (who's in charge of RMM) for about three years. Michael just won't listen to 15 minutes of your Romans 9 lectures! And I all but begged him, lol, 