Romans 9

http://pastormark.tv/2011/11/01/tough-text-tuesday-romans-9


Scripture Study
by Pastor Mark Driscoll on 11/1/2011


Romans 9
This passage has a long history of difficult interpretation, made more complex by the fact that the issues raised—such as Israel and Gentiles, covenants and salvation, and predestination and election—extend past the borders of a single chapter. The following discussion is intended to address the chapter as it relates to Paul’s discussion of salvation, as well as look at the ways in which interpreters have dealt with the passage.


God’s Promises, Israel’s Problem (Romans 9:1–5)
I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit—that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh. They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.


The early church faced a key challenge: how could Jesus be the promised Messiah if his own people rejected him? These opening verses express Paul’s intense emotion for the sake of his people, even as he reflects on the great privileges associated with the Jewish heritage. For Paul, the Jews had the benefit of God’s word, promises, and activity in human history (cf. Rom. 3:1–2). Because of this, their lack of belief is all the more disturbing.


Defining the Promise: God’s Sovereign Election (Romans 9:6–29)


Israel within Israel (Romans 9:6–13)
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. For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.” And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”


Paul argues that the Jews’ disbelief did not reflect a failure on God’s part. Their rejection only reveals the presence of an “Israel within Israel.” Just as he argued previously (Rom. 2:28–29), it was not enough to be a Jew because of ethnic heritage. Rather those with faith in Jesus Christ as Savior and Messiah are grafted into the tree that is Israel.


The phrase “children of the promise” reflects God’s sovereign choices in human history.[1] The larger truth is that salvation is determined by God’s choice rather than ethnic identity, self-choosing, or good works. Paul illustrates this with two examples: God’s choosing of (1) Isaac over Ishmael and (2) Jacob over Esau. All four characters are biological descendants of Abraham, yet only Isaac and Jacob receive God’s blessing. Verse 13 drives this home by contrasting God’s “hatred” for Esau with his “love” for Jacob. The verb “hate” is not used in today’s emotional sense, but it means to place priority of one over the other (similar uses are found in Matthew 6:24, Luke 14:26, and John 12:25).


Objections Answered: God’s Freedom and Purposes (Romans 9:14–23)


God is not fair (vv. 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.


Paul anticipates two key objections to his arguments. The first is that such choosing does not seem “fair.” Paul emphatically denies that God is unjust, citing a third example from the Old Testament: the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart. Paul proclaims that God did this to reveal his character to the world.


The Exodus account to which Paul refers introduces the concept of the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart, a subject that appears nineteen more times in Exodus.[2] Some of these verses say that it was God who hardened Pharaoh’s heart, while others indicate that Pharaoh hardened his own heart. Still, some theologians have said that the wording merely reflects the Hebrew understanding of the world, and that the issue is largely one of semantics because they would have seen every action as ultimately a work of God.


The question that has erupted from these verses is whether or not God could have overridden Pharaoh’s will, hardened his heart, and then punished him for his sin. If God had done that, then God would be unjust because he would be morally responsible for making Pharaoh sin and yet he still punished Pharaoh for doing what he was forced to do. If this is the case, then God is like an abusive father who makes their child sin and then disciplines them for sinning.


Paul is emphatic that God did in fact harden Pharaoh’s heart and so we must accept that truth. Still, the question of how God hardened Pharaoh’s heart is incredibly important if the justice of God is to be defended. The answer is that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart with patience and grace. God did not need to send Moses to Pharaoh on multiple occasions to invite Pharaoh to repent of his sin and free the Israelites. God did not need to perform miracles in front of Pharaoh to prove his power and sovereign rule over even Pharaoh. Furthermore, God knew that Pharaoh’s heart was hard and that in asking him to repent and come under the leadership of the real God and stop being a false god, Pharaoh would only grow all the more angry and hard-hearted. Therefore, it was grace that hardened Pharaoh’s heart, similar to heaping burning coals on the head of one’s enemies, as Jesus said. Subsequently, God remains gracious and is not unjust. The responsibility for the hard heart is ultimately the unrepentant, sinful Pharaoh who repeatedly rejects God’s offer of grace. Thus, the truism of the Puritans rings true that “the same sun that melts the ice hardens the clay.”
The big idea is that we are all like Pharaoh. None of us is good, and none of us would choose God. We each want to be our own god. And, unless God saves us, we are doomed. This leads us to the doctrines of election and predestination.


History has seen its share of objections to the doctrines of election and predestination. The largest and most widely recognized division is between “Calvinists” and “Arminians,” named for the sixteenth-century theologians John Calvin and Jacob Arminius, respectively.[3] Both affirm the doctrine of election, yet there is disagreement on the basis. Calvinists believe man is elected based on God’s will alone, and Arminians believe man is elected based on God’s foreknowledge of man’s choice to follow him.


Romans 9 is often used to support the Calvinist position. Arminians counter that Paul is not speaking here of the election of individuals, but of God’s dealing with a nation, of which Jacob and Isaac are representatives.[4]


Since Romans 9:13 is a quotation from Malachi 1:2–3, the Arminian contends that the passage must be interpreted through the lens of the Old Testament. God’s choosing of Jacob over Esau is viewed as symbolic of God’s knowledge of the deeds of Israel and her sinful neighbor, Edom. The flaw of this argument is that it makes it seem that God chose Israel based on her righteous deeds. Not only does this lead to salvation-by-works, it misses Malachi’s point: God loved Jacob despite his similarities to his brother. God’s love is therefore not based on works. Further, Paul makes clear that God’s selection was made prior to birth (Rom. 9:11), meaning works could never have been a factor. Finally, the most direct reading of this passage is of the election of individuals; to claim otherwise would be to go beyond what the text most directly says.[5]


We are not responsible (vv. 19–23)
You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 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—


Mercy, by definition, is undeserved. Because of man’s sinfulness, no one deserves salvation. It is therefore a supreme act of grace and love that anyone should be saved.[6] As sinners, we are in fact not just undeserving but also ill deserving.


In verse 19, Paul predicts a second objection: if God makes these choices, how can man be held responsible? Paul answers with the familiar word picture of a potter and clay. Like a skilled potter, God has the authority to fashion his creation as he chooses.


Paul says that we, the molded, must be careful not to stand back and, like Pharaoh, judge God, because that is, in essence, to declare ourselves God. The finished products crafted out of one lump of clay would be foolish to complain to the potter that they do not like what they have been made to accomplish. Paul is saying that, rather than complaining that God is unjust for not saving everyone, we should rejoice that God is gracious and merciful in saving anyone. If you are a Christian, when you see unrepentant and lost sinners destined for hell, you should pursue them with the gospel and thank God that he changed your heart, because apart from him saving you, your condition would be equally pathetic. On this point the church father Ambrosiaster said, “It is a great indignity and presumption for a man to answer back to God—the unjust to the just, the evil to the good, the imperfect to the perfect, the weak to the strong, the corruptible to the incorrupt, the mortal to the immortal, the servant to the lord, the creature to the creator!”


As an aside, there is a debate among Bible teachers over whether this metaphor of potter and clay refers to individuals or nations. The Old Testament uses the analogy in more than one place[7] to refer to both individuals and nations, which means there are good cases on both sides of the debate, but the big idea that God chooses some and not all is unaffected.


Paul then quotes a number of Old Testament verses to show that God is not unfair. First, Paul quotes Hosea 2:23 and 1:10 to show that God, who is rich in mercy, used election to save some Gentiles who were not pursuing God in any way. Apart from God’s predestination and pursuit they were without any hope. In this we see the love and mercy of God greatly displayed to ill-deserving sinners.


Second, Paul quotes Isaiah 10:22–23 to show that God had always promised that only some of the Jews would be saved. Therefore, God had not failed by saving only some Jewish people, rather, his Word was perfectly implemented in history.


Third, Paul closes by quoting Isaiah 1:9 to show that without God’s mercy and election, no one would be saved from his wrath. Practically, this means that everyone is a sinner who deserves wrath and hell, and anyone who is saved has received an ill-deserved gift from a loving God who is rich in mercy.


Paul’s Conclusion: The Beauty of God’s Grace (Romans 9:30-33)
In Romans 9:30–33, Paul concludes his answer to these objections by saying exactly that, illustrating the beauty of God’s grace to pursue some people who have not pursued him so that they will not stumble over Jesus but rather trust in him:


What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, as it is written, “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense; and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”


In a fitting conclusion for a man so zealously committed to evangelism and church planting—the means by which God would work through him to save the elect—Paul then says, “Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved.”[8] Indeed, for Paul, a correct understanding of predestinating election is actually an impetus for fervent evangelistic ministry, because no matter how dark and bleak someone’s heart may be, there is always the possibility, so long as they are breathing, that God could do a miracle and save them. Such was Paul’s own experience as a godless man who was chosen by God to be saved and used to spread the message of salvation to others.


What I love about Paul is that his own testimony is one of God’s immeasurable grace poured out on him, as he hated Christians before his own conversion. And, in the greatest section of the Bible on predestination and election (Romans 9–11), Paul is not cold hearted or deterministic, assuming that the elect will be saved so why bother doing much evangelism or church planting. Instead, he is passionate about getting the message of the gospel of Jesus Christ out so that the elect can be saved. He says just this in Romans 10:14–15: “And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent?”


The man, Paul, who experienced predestination and election, and taught predestination and election, was also the most fervent evangelist and church planter the world had ever known. If we want to be truly Pauline, we need to have not just his theology but also his passionate fervor for evangelism and church planting, following the lifestyle that leads from his biblical convictions, not just speculating and arguing, but rather evangelizing and reaching.


References
[1] Thomas Schreiner, Romans (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1998), 494–96.
[2] Ex. 7:3, 13, 14, 22; 8:15, 19, 32; 9:7, 12, 34–35; 10:1, 20, 27; 11:10; 13:15; 14:4, 8, 17.
[3] Though to be clear, the teachings of these men are not necessarily meant to be synonymous with the doctrines that bear their names: these doctrines existed long prior to either man, and contemporary forms of these doctrines have been shaped and molded by countless others. See Bruce Demarest, The Cross and Salvation(Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1997), 99–118, for a full treatment of the history of these doctrines.
[4] As one Arminian writer puts it: “Paul . . . does not think of the church as made up of a collection of individuals, but as a body.” Alan Richardson, An Introduction to the Theology of the New Testament (New York: Harper and Row, 1958), 279.
[5] Robert L. Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998), 367–68.
[6] John Stott, Romans: God’s News for the World (Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1994), 269–70.
[7] Isa. 29:16; 45:9–11; Jer. 18:1–6.
[8] Rom. 10:1.