Divine Justice Issues (XXIX)

Was it right for God to punish the animal creation for the sin of man? That is our next question to address in this series. In "Animal Death – God’s Fault or Man’s Fault?" Dr. Jason Lisle (See here), a well known Christian apologist for young earth creationists, wrote (emphasis mine): 

"There is something wonderful about having a pet, these cute wiggly little balls of fur that give us unconditional love. They just want to be near their human, often to the point that they practically jump out of their skin to greet us as we return home from time away. But we only have them for a while. Our animal friends come with an unknown yet unavoidable expiration date. And when you lose your little buddy, it is a sad day. Though they are not made in God’s image as people are, nonetheless, losing an animal friend is painful. How do we account for such a sad thing as animal suffering and death? Why does God permit such an awful thing? And ultimately, whose fault is it that animals suffer and die?"

I recently wrote on the death of my little dog Kirby in "Do Our Pets Go To Heaven?" (See here). Since his death I have often said several things to myself about it, such as "thanks Adam." I am saddened when I see animals suffering. Those commercials by the society for the prevention of cruelty to animals (SPCA) that show animals suffering because of neglect or mistreatment make me feel very sad. When I see nature films showing animals preying on other animals, violently killing and eating them, I feel the horror of it. All nature is fading and dying because of the sin of Adam. Why did God bring such awful consequences to nature because of the one man's sin? Is that just and right for God to do? Why did he do it?

Lisle continued:

"Since Adam was given dominion over the animals, his sin affected the animal world as well. We understand this principle all too well; when our government officials act wickedly, all of us suffer because we are under their authority. A straightforward reading of Scripture indicates that animal death is man’s fault."

I agree with this and make the same arguments when discussing the justice of God imputing the sin of Adam to his descendants, or his "visiting the iniquity upon the fathers upon the children." We showed how this paradigm of things was also what made salvation possible, for unless God had allowed a substitute and the imputation of people's sins to Christ, or of his righteousness to people, no one would be saved. If every man only stood for his own sin and could only be saved by himself, no one would be saved. But, such justification for the imputation of Adam's sin does not justify God in setting up an order of things that makes all creation to suffer for the sin of Adam. Why curse the ground or the heavens and earth because of the sin of Adam? Why allow Adam's sin to bring suffering to the animals? 

Lisle continued:

"Likewise, many professing Christians subtly (or perhaps not so subtly) blame God for animal death. Old earth creationists and theistic evolutionists generally claim that animals had been living and dying for hundreds of millions of years before human beings were even created. So obviously, death cannot be man’s fault if man did not exist at the time. Belief in millions of years requires us to blame God rather than man for animal death. But is such a position Scripturally defensible?"

All that is true. However, a skeptic might easily ask "did not God decree that the sin of man bring suffering to the whole creation?" Could he not have set it up differently?

Lisle continued:

"We must admit that taking Scripture at face value, we have every indication that animal death was a result of Adam’s sin, and absolutely no evidence of animal death before sin."

Again, that is true. But it still does not address the chief question which asks "why did God ordain that the animal world suffer death and adverse things because of Adam's sin?" And, "was it just for God to do that?"

Lisle continued:

"That death in general (human death and animal death) entered the world as the result of Adam’s sin is the collective teaching of the entire Bible. Genesis specifically mentions animal death as part of the curse. Recall that God sacrificed an animal or animals and used their skins as garments of clothing to cover the shame associated with Adam’s sin (Genesis 3:21)."  

Every lamb or goat or pigeon that was sacrificed for atonement of man's sin is a picture of how innocent animals suffer for the sins of man.

Lisle continued:

"Furthermore, we are supposed to emulate God’s character (Ephesians 5:1, Isaiah 55:7-8). So, if God enjoys the suffering and death of animals, then so should we. Yet this is contrary to the Scriptures. The Bible teaches that a righteous man cares for the life of the animals under his authority, but the wicked are cruel (Proverbs 12:10). A good shepherd cares about the life of his sheep (John 10:11). So, if God does not care about His animals, then wouldn’t that make man more righteous than God? And we know that isn’t biblical."

But again, the infidel or skeptic might respond by saying "if God cares about his animals, then why did he punish them for the sin of Adam?" 

In a Google search of the question "was it just for God to punish all of creation for man's sin" we get this AI Overview answer:

"Whether it was just for God to punish all of creation for man's sin is a theological question with various interpretations. Some argue it was just, as God's judgment is always righteous, while others find it unjust, especially regarding the concept of "original sin" and the potential for a just God to punish innocent individuals for another's actions." 

We have already seen how God imputed the one sin of Adam to all his posterity and that this was just and right for God to do. But, the original sin of Adam also brought a curse to all of creation. If it was just for God to punish Adam's descendants for Adam's sin, then it is also likewise just for him to curse man's habitation, and "the whole creation," including the earth, animals, and plants. Just as original sin is based upon a union between Adam and his descendants, so too is it based upon a union of man with the cosmos, with the animal world. 

The Cursing of Creation

"So the Lord God said to the serpent: "Because you have done this, You are cursed more than all cattle, And more than every beast of the field; On your belly you shall go, And you shall eat dust All the days of your life." (Gen. 3: 14 nkjv)

"Then to Adam He said, "Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, 'You shall not eat of it': "Cursed is the ground for your sake; In toil you shall eat of it All the days of your life. Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you, And you shall eat the herb of the field. In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread Till you return to the ground, For out of it you were taken; For dust you are, And to dust you shall return." (Gen. 3: 14-19 nkjv)

The apostle John speaks of a time coming when in the new heavens and new earth “there will no longer be any curse” (Revelation 22:3). The curse of sin will be lifted, and all creation will be restored to the Eden-like reflection of God’s glory (Isaiah 65:17; 66:22; 2 Peter 3:13). “There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away” (Revelation 21:4). The full realization of redemption includes the reversal of the curse on the present heavens and earth, and on the animal and plant kingdoms. The Genesis curse on the earth and on the animals will be removed at the return of the Messiah, resulting in the lifting of the current conditions of animal hostility. When that occurs, there will once again no longer be any evil consequences for the animal world for the sin of man. So we read of these prophecies: 

"(6) The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. (7) And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. (8) And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den. (9) They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea." (Isaiah 11:6-9 KJV)

"I will make a covenant of peace with them and rid the land of wild beasts so that they may live in the desert and sleep in the forests in safety." (Ezekiel 34: 25 NIV) 

"In that day I will make a covenant for them with the beasts of the field and the birds of the air and the creatures that move along the ground." (Hosea 2:18a NIV)

Is this literal or figurative language? Surely it is literal. These verses tell us that originally Adam and Eve were at peace with the animals. They feared not the animals and the animals feared not man. Further, it appears that both man and animal were strictly vegetarian. God allowed Adam and Eve to eat plants and herbs, a privilege he granted also to the animals (Gen. 1:29-30). Humans and animals enjoyed a peaceful and friendly relationship in the Garden of Eden (Gen. 2:19-20). 

It was only after the Flood that permission was granted to eat animal flesh, and only then under the condition that the blood be drained out of the meat (Gen. 9:3-4). We may take this as indication that meat eating was not ideal, although God certainly blessed the eating of meat in other times and places (Lev. 6:24-29; Acts 10:9-16).

Notice these verses that tell us of God's oracle to Noah and his sons relative to their being allowed to kill animals and to eat their flesh.

"And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth. And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered. Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things. But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat. And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man." (Gen. 9: 1-5 kjv)

On this text John Gill comments in his commentary:

"And the fear or you, and the dread of you, shall be upon every beast of the earth,....This is a renewal, at least in part, of the grant of dominion to Adam over all the creatures; these obeyed him cheerfully, and from love, but sinning, he in a good measure lost his power over them, they rebelled against him; but now though the charter of power over them is renewed, they do not serve man freely, but are in dread of him, and flee from him; some are more easily brought into subjection to him, and even the fiercest and wildest of them may be tamed by him; and this power over them was the more easily retrieved in all probability by Noah and his sons, from the inhabitation of the creatures with them for so long a time in the ark: 

and upon every fowl of the air, and upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; as appears by fowls flying away, by beasts and creeping things getting off as fast as they can, and by fishes swimming away at the sight of men: 

into your hand are they delivered; as the lords and proprietors of them, for their use and service, and particularly for what follows, see Psalm 8:6 where there is an enumeration of the creatures subject to men."

Animals were preserved with Noah in the ark. They will also be preserved through the day of judgment, wrath, and tribulation. But, after the "regeneration" of the world (Matt. 19: 28) there will be no more savagery among the animal kingdom. Animals will no longer be killed for food or for clothing. There will be no more fear and dread between humans and animals. 

Paul's Revelation

God's curse on the creation is announced by God in Genesis chapter three, but Paul's commentary on it is seen in Romans 8:19-22 and is the key to our understanding of this event.

"For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now." (Rom. 8: 19-22 nkjv)

There has not been unanimity among bible commentators on who is meant by "the creation" or "the whole creation." Some think that the reference is to the children of God who are styled a "new creation" or "new creature" in scripture. (II Cor. 5: 17) Others, as I do, believe this is wrong, believing rather that by the whole creation is intended all of nature, the present heavens and earth, and the animal and vegetable kingdoms. This is clear I think in the text because "the children of God" are viewed as distinct from "the whole creation." It is but a summation of what was promised in the old testament in connection with new heavens and earth, as the scriptures cited above foretell about peace in the animal creation. The Greek word for creation (ktisis – κτίσις) in verse 19 has been the subject of some debate, but in context it clearly refers to the non-human creation; the creation is distinguished from redeemed humanity in verse 21.

John Calvin in his commentary writes:

"Because the creation itself, etc. He shows how the creation has in hope been made subject to vanity; that is, inasmuch as it shall some time be made free, according to what Isaiah testifies, and what Peter confirms still more clearly. It is then indeed meet for us to consider what a dreadful curse we have deserved, since all created things in themselves blameless, both on earth and in the visible heaven, undergo punishment for our sins; for it has not happened through their own fault, that they are liable to corruption. Thus the condemnation of mankind is imprinted on the heavens, and on the earth, and on all creatures. It hence also appears to what excelling glory the sons of God shall be exalted; for all creatures shall be renewed in order to amplify it, and to render it illustrious."

This is what is shown us in the Book of Genesis and the texts I have cited from it. God cursed the ground, the animals, and all nature as a result of Adam's sin. 

Calvin continues:

"But he means not that all creatures shall be partakers of the same glory with the sons of God; but that they, according to their nature, shall be participators of a better condition; for God will restore to a perfect state the world, now fallen, together with mankind. But what that perfection will be, as to beasts as well as plants and metals, it is not meet nor right in us to inquire more curiously; for the chief effect of corruption is decay. Some subtle men, but hardly sober-minded, inquire whether all kinds of animals will be immortal; but if reins be given to speculations where will they at length lead us? Let us then be content with this simple doctrine, — that such will be the constitution and the complete order of things, that nothing will be deformed or fading."

Of course I think Calvin is too censorious in his denunciation of those who seek to know about the kind of conditions that will exist in the world, human, animal, plant, heavens and earth, etc.

So, in conclusion we say that it is true that God brought all of nature, including the animals, into their present wild and savage state as a punishment for the sin of man. But, we also see where man's redemption includes a restoration of Edenic conditions for the animals. In my series on the afterlife and eternal state, I go into greater detail about the peace that will exist between animals and humans. 

It is just for God to have done this for several reasons. First of all he is God, the Creator, and can so order and constitute things as he sees fit. Second, it is not against his will to prevent adverse consequences to nature as a result of man's fall into sin. Third, his subjecting of the whole creation to death and suffering was never meant to be permanent for he has promised to deliver the whole creation from the effects of sin.

Divine Justice Issues (XXVIII)

One of the leading objections to the doctrine of unconditional election is that it makes God to be a "respecter of persons," that he is guilty of showing partiality and discrimination. We have replied to some of this line of reasoning already but want to elaborate on it. We have shown how it is not unjust or unfair for God to favor one person over another, that God is not obligated to give all his creatures equal abilities and gifts. Because creatures are clay and the result of God's work as a potter, no creature has any right to complain to God that he is unjust because he did not make him better than he is. Paul, citing God's word in the old testament, asks rhetorically - "Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?" (Rom. 9: 20) Isaiah wrote this oracle:

"Woe to him who strives with his Maker! Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth! Shall the clay say to him who forms it, 'What are you making?' Or shall your handiwork say, 'He has no hands'? Woe to him who says to his father, 'What are you begetting?' Or to the woman, 'What have you brought forth?'" (Isa. 45: 9-10 nkjv)

God has made many kinds of creatures, from the highest angel, seraphim, cherubim, down to human beings and further down to animals. God has a right to determine the kind of creature to make and creatures are wrong to insult their Creator by murmuring against him for not making them different. It is ironically unjust for rational creatures to charge God with injustice for exercising his own sovereign rights. This is the sin of those who are called "trans" today, people who don't like the fact that they were born male or female and seek to make themselves into the opposite sex (or "transcend"). 

The doctrine of election, particularly in its Calvinistic form, teaches that God chooses individuals for salvation independently of their merit or actions, being in this sense "unconditional." This raises the question of whether this choice by God makes him guilty of showing partiality or favoritism. While the doctrine is sometimes seen as a form of preferential treatment or discrimination, and therefore an unrighteous thing for God to do, it is really not as it seems, as we will show. Rather, those who say God chose A because A had quality B, and rejected those who did not have that quality (or didn't perform a certain action) are the ones who really make God a respecter of persons and to show partiality. That is truly ironic. It is ironic because they are saying that God's choice is based on some difference, some betterment, in the ones chosen. However, as we have seen, God's election is not based upon any inherent quality or merit or good of the individual, but rather on his own sovereign will and purpose. 

Respecting Persons is not Righteous

"These things also belong to the wise. It is not good to have respect of persons in judgment." (Prov. 24: 23 KJV) 

 

"To have respect of persons is not good: for for a piece of bread that man will transgress." (Prov. 28: 21 KJV) 

"Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour." (Leviticus 19: 15 KJV) 

"Thou shalt not wrest judgment; thou shalt not respect persons, neither take a gift: for a gift doth blind the eyes of the wise, and pervert the words of the righteous." (Deuteronomy 16: 19 KJV)

These texts denounce showing partiality or respect of persons in judgment. It also gives some things that define what it means to show respect of person. Clearly to show respect of persons is "wrong" and a case of doing what is "unrighteous." God does not want people being partial or showing respect of persons. Further, he does not do this himself and his choice of people, such as Isaac and Jacob to be his children, is not a case of showing respect of persons. 

One example of showing respect of persons in judgment is seen in cases where one's decision to show favor is based upon whether a person is "poor" or "mighty." We have "person of the poor" and "person of the mighty." No one should be favored or declared innocent or guilty, judged to be right or wrong, based upon his financial statement. A person should not be declared innocent because he is poor, or rich, though this is often done in courts. 

In God's choice of Isaac and Jacob, as we have seen (or of everyone of the vessels of mercy), it was not based upon whether they were rich or poor. Paul plainly affirms that God's choice could not be based upon something in Isaac and Jacob, or something they did, for God chose them before they were ever born, and who had "not yet done either good or evil," concluding that God's election of sinners to salvation "is not of him who wills nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy." 

It is therefore an error for Arminians, and others who deny unconditional election, to say that for God to choose some unconditionally to salvation (and not choosing others) is a scenario where God is being unfair and unrighteous, for he is guilty of partiality and showing respect of persons. However, that is fallacious reasoning. If it was valid reasoning we would then have to conclude that God was partial and a respecter of persons when he chose Isaac and rejected Ishmael, and when he chose and loved Jacob and did not choose nor love Esau. The Arminian argument therefore forces him to say for God's election of either angels or men is God's decision to choose those persons who have or do XY, and Z. That is, God's election must be based upon conditions or it is not just and right. That is, God chooses those who believe and obey and rejects those who do not believe and obey. In the Arminian mind, this is the only way God can rightly base his election of sinners to salvation. 

Is God A Respecter of Persons?

In the text at the head (Romans 2: 11), it is clearly said that "God is no respecter of persons." (kjv) Other translations say "God does not show favoritism" (niv) "God shows no partiality" (esv). 

Weymouth's translations says: "God pays no attention to this world's distinctions." (which is more a paraphrase) "For God judges everyone by the same standard." (Good News translation)

However, I favor "respect of persons" as the older versions. The reasons for that will become apparent when we look more closely at how the bible defines and describes what it means to show such respect of persons.

"Wherefore now let the fear of the LORD be upon you; take heed and do it: for there is no iniquity with the LORD our God, nor respect of persons, nor taking of gifts." (II Chronicles 19: 7 KJV)

"And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear." (I Peter 1: 17 KJV)

"God is no respecter of persons." (Acts 10: 34)

We must be careful in proclaiming that God is no respecter or persons, and that he is impartial, and that he judges all by the same equal standard. For instance, do these verses say that people should not be respected? No. Why? Because it teaches us to "give honor (respect) to whom honor is due" (Rom. 13: 7) as in respecting one's elders and parents. God also shows respect to those who please him. So we read:

"And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering: But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell." (Gen. 4: 4-5 kjv)

Here Lord God respected both the person and religious acts of Abel but did not respect the person and religious acts of Cain. So, as previously stated, when God is said to not be a respecter of persons, this is not to be understood to be true in every respect. God respected Abel because he was a man of faith and brought the proper sacrifice and did not respect Cain because he was not a man of faith nor brought the right gift. We also learn from the scriptures that the reason Abel had faith was because he was given faith by God. 

As regards God showing partiality or favoritism, we have also already addressed that question. We looked at passages that speak of being good to some "especially," or more than others. Are persons to be faulted because they love their spouses or children more than others? Is it wrong for God to give more grace to one than to another? It it wrong for God to naturally endow some people with greater abilities? God is partial in ways that are right. He is not partial in deciding who has done right or wrong. His partiality or favoritism is not based upon merit or any natural difference between men. This is the chief meaning of "grace." 

Definition

"My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons. For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment; And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool: Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts? Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him? But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats? Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called? If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well: But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors." (James 2: 1-9 KJV)

This text shines light on what it means to show respect of persons. It also reiterates the fact that to "have respect of persons" is to "commit sin" and be designated "as transgressors." It is to base one's treatment and judgement of others on their "faces," or "persons" (personas), whether they are rich or poor, learned or unlearned, high society or low life, famous or unknown, etc. 

God does not choose any to salvation because he or she is in any way superior to others. It is not a choice of those who have differentiated themselves from others by having made better choices and had better successes. However, it is the Arminian idea that God chooses those who first choose him, who chooses to love those who first loved him, to choose those who made themselves to differ from another. The apostle said that God "out of the same lump" makes one vessel unto honor and another unto dishonor. The clay that was made for honor was not any different from the clay made for dishonor prior to God beginning his work on it. The difference came after the Potter's making each piece of clay different. Recall Paul's question - "who makes you different from another and what do you have that you did not receive from God?" 

Abel was different from Cain. Isaac was different from Ishmael. Jacob was different from Esau. The chosen seed in Egypt was different than the Egyptians. So we read:

"But against any of the children of Israel shall not a dog move his tongue, against man or beast: that ye may know how that the LORD doth put a difference between the Egyptians and Israel." (Exo. 11: 7 kjv)

Recall that in a previous chapter we showed how God instructed Gideon to choose those soldiers who showed they were superior in wisdom and military skills, or who merited being chosen, and denied that God's choice of sinners to salvation was likewise a choice of the most deserving, a choice of those who were wise enough to have made the right decision to believe God or to obey him. God's choice is what makes the difference and so any such difference cannot be the reason for God's choice. So, we cannot say that "God chose me because I chose him" but rather say "God chose me before I chose him." Therefore the doctrine of unconditional, or unmerited, election is not a case of God showing partiality or respecting persons.

Divine Justice Issues (XXVII)

Many theologians answer this question by using an analogy. They say that the same sun will melt ice but harden clay. The same thing that softens the hearts of some is the same thing that hardens the hearts of others. So, by this analogy God is justified in his hardening of the clay (or the heart). God sends fires of trial in his providential crucible and in one case the fire purifies some people so that they become vessels for honor and glory, and in other cases some people are destroyed by the fire and become vessels for wrath and dishonor. So, in this way we see how God, by means of fire or the sun (contributing causes), makes one vessel into a good or better vessel and makes another vessel into a bad or worse vessel. There is much truth in these analogies. 

We might ask in response to those who would criticize how God punishes transgressors or his "judicial hardening" of heart: "is society morally responsible if criminals become more criminal by being sent to prison by them?" Is their criminal justice system better than God's?

Many who write on the philosophy of crime and punishment will often say that criminals are really victims, and therefore not responsible, at least to some degree. This was what the famous lawyer Clarence Darrow argued in one of his famous cases. (See my posting on this here) It is also the philosophy of many liberal democrats in this country. It is the view of most sociologists. My college major was in sociology and I was taught it and read it in the writings of the leading sociologists. Their idea is that a person is born with a good nature, or at least a "Tabula rasa." It is a Latin phrase meaning "blank slate" or "clean slate." It's a philosophical concept that refers to the idea that the human mind, soul, or spirit at birth is a blank slate, without any pre-existing or intuitive knowledge, or no law written in their nature. This concept suggests that all knowledge and belief are acquired through sensory experiences and interactions with the world, or from the environment. Therefore the liberal sociologist will argue that a person who becomes a criminal becomes so by external factors alone and thus becomes an innocent victim. Of course, the bible is against this philosophy. It rather teaches that man is born depraved, as we have already seen. (Psa. 51: 5; Eph. 2: 3; etc.) It teaches that every man is responsible for his crimes and has no excuses. (Rom. 1: 20)

That is not to deny, however, that some criminals may be shown leniency due to what are called "mitigating" circumstances. In legal terms, a mitigating circumstance is a factor that lessens the severity of a criminal offense or the punishment for it. It's not an excuse or justification for the crime, but rather a reason to consider the defendant's actions as less blameworthy. These circumstances can lead to reduced charges or a lighter sentence. The bible acknowledges the rightness of this way of thinking. Solomon said: "People do not despise a thief if he steals to satisfy his appetite when he is hungry." (Prov. 6: 30 kjv) The bible also  recognizes how external factors may be contributing causes for a person becoming criminal and that these should be considered in deciding the level and kind of punishment in a sentence.

Further, who can doubt that when a sinner enters into his eternal prison (Hell) that his time there makes him infinitely more hardened against God and right? If men do not condemn themselves for making criminals more hardened by their imprisonments, then they cannot condemn God. 

Judicial Hardening

"But although He had done so many signs before them, they did not believe in Him, that the word of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spoke: “Lord, who has believed our report? And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?” Therefore they could not believe, because Isaiah said again: “He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, Lest they should see with their eyes, Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I should heal them.” These things Isaiah said when he saw His glory and spoke of Him." (John 12: 37-41 nkjv)

Barnes in his commentary says: "There is, indeed, a judicial blinding and a judicial hardening." It is not a case where God is preventing the salvation of anyone who is seeking salvation. For, as we have seen, "God desires that all men be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth." (I Tim. 2: 4) God does not want any of his creatures to believe falsehood, especially about him and his ways. It is rather a case where God has "given up," as it were, in his efforts to turn a man from his wicked ways. In Romans chapter one Paul speaks of this when he speaks of how “God gave them over” (or "up") in three things: 

1) “God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them” (verse 24, NASB). 

2) “God gave them over to degrading passions” (verse 26, NASB). 

3) “God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper” (verse 28, NASB).

"The Greek word translated “gave over” or “gave up” means “surrendered, yielded up, entrusted, or transmitted.” In this context, it refers to the act of God completely abandoning the unrighteous. As the wicked deserted God, God in turn deserted them, no longer giving them divine direction or restraint, but allowing them to corrupt themselves as they wished. Because they would not honor Him, He let them do what they pleased to dishonor themselves. Being given over or yielded up to one’s sinful desires is a judgment from God." (Got Questions - See here - emphasis mine)

So, it must be acknowledged that God's judicial hardening and blinding, his giving them up, makes sinners more sinful, and this is one way in which they are being further fitted or prepared, as vessels of wrath, for destruction. Is God just to render this kind of punishment knowing that it will increase a person's sin and level of punishment? Can he not send punishments that rather reform the sinner and turn him around, or make him sin less? Answer: yes, some of God's punishments do act as means to turn a sinner around. But, in some cases, they rather harden the wicked man even more. If a man is "getting away with" his crimes, with little punishment, will this not encourage him to keep on committing crimes? We see this to be the case with some criminals.

The same source article also says:

"What’s the result of God’s having given them over? “They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them” (Romans 1:29–32)."

Some God haters who are ever looking for ways they can condemn God may argue that God is the cause of some people becoming more sinful because of his judicial hardening. Obviously, however, God does not agree with this, i.e. that he is being unjust to give the sinner up because it leads him to commit greater sins. Further, God can and often does lesson the amount of sin being committed by his creatures. The bible is filled with proof texts that uphold this truth. For instance, the bible teaches that God is hindering or preventing, for the time being, the coming of the Antichrist. (II Thess. 2: 6-7) But, one day he will suffer Antichrist to enter into the scene and then what follows will be greater wickedness on earth. So, we cannot go beyond scripture and affirm that God never does anything in his providence and government of men that brings about more wickedness. If the cynic thinks he could do better than God in his control of the world, let him tell us how he would govern the wicked or criminal.

When God gives persons up or over because they have long spurned his truth, he gives them over to a "reprobate mind." Wrote Paul in that same chapter:

"And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness..." (Rom. 1: 29-30 kjv)

"A reprobate mind is void of all sense and judgment to discern things that differ, so that they could not distinguish their right hand from their left in spiritual things." (Matthew Henry commentary) 

Said the same source:

"The sad fact is that sometimes God gives us what we want. God allowed the Israelites who rebelled to reap the natural consequences of their choice: “But my people would not listen to me; Israel would not submit to me. So I gave them over to their stubborn hearts to follow their own devices” (Psalm 81:11–12). In Romans 1, Paul shows how the wicked made a choice to reject God, and that choice set them on a downward spiral of increasing darkness and decreasing hope. As the godless run farther and farther from God, God intervenes less and less. The Spirit’s restraint of sin is a blessing, and if that restraint is removed, all wickedness follows." 

The God hater, by sophistry, will act like a prosecutor and put God on trial and say that because God removed his restraints, he caused more wickedness, and he shows thereby that he is not just. After all, why does God not do more restraining? Cannot criminals say that it is God's fault that they committed a crime since he did not keep them from doing the crime? However, God is not obligated to intervene to stop every crime, nor to show mercy to all without exception. 

Yes, as the Got Questions article says, God does sadly sometimes give people what they want, even though he knows that it would be better if he didn't. So the Psalmist wrote: "And He gave them their request, But sent leanness into their soul." (Psa. 106: 15 nkjv) God, like many parents, replies to their begging children - "okay, I am going to give you what you want, but you will regret it, but I do it so that you might thereby learn a few things." A case where this is seen is in the story of "the prodigal son" who pestered his father and demanded that he give him his inheritance early in life. The father granted his request and it led to the ruination of the son, loss of all his inheritance by squandering all in sinful pursuits, living is squalor, to starving to death.

Barnes says further:

"He hath blinded their eyes - The expression in Isaiah is, "Go, make the heart of this people fat, and shut their eyes." That is, go and proclaim truth to them truth that will result in blinding their eyes. Go and proclaim the law and the will of God, and the effect will be, owing to the hardness of their heart, that their eyes will be blinded and their hearts hardened. As God knew that this would be the result - as it was to be the effect of the message, his commanding Isaiah to go and proclaim it was the same in effect, or in the result, as if he had commanded him to blind their eyes and harden their hearts. It is this effect or result to which the evangelist refers in this place. He states that God did it, that is, he did it in the manner mentioned in Isaiah, for we are limited to that in our interpretation of the passage. In that case it is clear that the mode specified is not a direct agency on the part of God in blinding the mind - which we cannot reconcile with any just notions of the divine character - but "in suffering the truth to produce a regular effect on sinful minds, without putting forth any positive supernatural influence to prevent it." The effect of truth on such minds is to irritate, to enrage, and to harden, unless counteracted by the grace of God. See Romans 7:8-9, Romans 7:11; 2 Corinthians 2:15-16. And as God knew this, and, knowing it, still sent the message, and suffered it to produce the regular effect, the Evangelist says "he hath blinded their minds," thus retaining the substance of the passage in Isaiah without quoting the precise language; but in proclaiming the truth there was nothing wrong on the part of God or of Isaiah, nor is there any indication that God was unwilling that they should believe and be saved."

We might view the command of God to Isaiah as sarcasm. In other words he says "Preach to them Isaiah and give them more opportunities to refuse, scorn, deride, and harden themselves against me." 

The very same ones who believed not and had hardened their hearts is not because they cannot be healed (saved), but simply means that as long as they remain in this state their healing is not possible.

In other places in the gospels we read where people are also said to have hardened their own hearts when they refused to believe in Jesus. (Mark 6: 52, 8: 17) So again we see where both God and people themselves may be seen as doing the same hardening in some cases. 

Further, it is not only the unbeliever who is often hardened in his heart towards God and his word, but even the believer sometimes is likewise hardened. So we read: "For they considered not the miracle of the loaves: for their heart was hardened." (Mark 6: 52 kjv) The "they" of the text are the apostles, God's disciples. Notice also these words of the Lord Jesus to his apostles and disciples:

"And he charged them, saying, Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, and of the leaven of Herod. And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have no bread. And when Jesus knew it, he saith unto them, Why reason ye, because ye have no bread? perceive ye not yet, neither understand? have ye your heart yet hardened? Having eyes, see ye not? and having ears, hear ye not? and do ye not remember?"(Mark 8: 15-18 kjv)

Here again the "they" are the apostles. Believers must always be on guard against becoming hardened in heart and spirit against any truth of God. We see this hardening of heart against truth in the many cults within the professing Christian community. Each of these cults holds to some gross heresy and become hardened against all other groups and against certain bible doctrines. One group I have focused much of my outreach ministry towards are those known as "Primitive" "Old School" or "Hardshell" Baptists. The term hardshell was applied to them because of their stubborn adherence to their ideas and for them withdrawing into a cocoon. These folks are hardened against all other churches, being especially antagonistic towards those they call "Missionary Baptists," or "Arminians." It is also seen to a large degree in some Calvinists being hardened against Arminians and vise versa, or between Unitarians and Trinitarians. 

A hardened heart is intimately linked with a lack of understanding, with ignorance, and blindness to truth. Our lack of understanding God's word, even as believers, can sometimes be the result of having a hard heart, or being hard-headed. Another verse that shows that even believers are to ever be on guard against having a hard heart is this:

"Beware, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God; but exhort one another daily, while it is called “Today,” lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. For we have become partakers of Christ if we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast to the end, while it is said: “Today, if you will hear His voice, Do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion.” (Heb. 3: 12-15 nkjv)

This text tells us much about what it means for the heart to be hardened and the causes of it. The Christian has no need to worry that God is going to harden his heart as he did Pharaoh, Sihon, and others. That is because the believer is not a vessel of wrath, or vessel unto dishonor, and doomed to destruction, but is rather a vessel of mercy, a vessel unto honor, who is being prepared by God for glory. God will never "give them up" as he does the reprobate. They may harden their hearts to some degree, but never to the extent or for the same reason, that many unbelievers are hardened in heart. The thing that causes hardness of heart is "the deceitfulness of sin." 

"13 This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. 14 Indeed, in their case the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled that says: ‘“You will indeed hear but never understand, and you will indeed see but never perceive.” 15 For this people’s heart has grown dull, and with their ears they can barely hear, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and turn, and I would heal them.’" (Matt. 13: 13-15)

These are the effects of a hardened heart, a stubborn will, and perverseness of spirit. It is a heart that is in opposition to God, or to one or more of his truths. When people get into the condition described above by Jesus and Isaiah it is much more difficult to bring them to repentance. If God saves any of them it will require greater power to be exercised by him. With them God may have to use extraordinary means, even a pry bar, to pry them away from their sins. But again, God will never harden the hearts of his own children in the same way he did to his enemies, such as Pharaoh and Sihon. God will soften the hearts of believers so that their hardness of heart is limited and restrained as a result of mercy shown. The hardening of the hearts of the reprobate brings an end to God's positive influence towards them. Further, God only hardens the hearts of the vessels of wrath, in conjunction with their own efforts towards that end, but he never hardens the hearts of his own children. They do that themselves within the limits he circumscribes. 

Some of the other ways that the vessels of wrath are being prepared or fitted for destruction may be learned from such texts as this:

"But in accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God."(Rom. 2: 5 nkjv)

This "treasuring up" is linked with "prepared (fitted) for destruction." Both texts show that this preparation is continuous and progressive. Every sinner who is spurning God and his offers of mercy and chooses a life of sin is being steadily prepared for destruction. In fact, that are on "the broad way that leads to destruction." (Matt. 7: 13) 

"But in the fourth generation they shall return here, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete.” 

(Gen. 15: 16 nkjv)

We might say that the Amorites, as vessels of wrath, were not yet fully "fitted" for destruction until they had reached a certain level in their sinful course. When hard hearted people die, we may say that they die "ready" for Hell, in contradistinction to the vessels of mercy who will die ready or "fit for" Heaven. 

Divine Justice Issues (XXVI)

In this chapter we will continue to focus on the vessels for dishonor being "fitted" or "prepared" for destruction (Rom. 9: 22), examining the ways that such people are being readied for destruction. As stated in the previous chapter we took the position that both God and the vessels of wrath are involved in this fitting and we will now elaborate on that point. We stated that one of the ways in which this preparation occurs is through the hardening of the heart, which in the case of Pharaoh was said to be both what God did and what Pharaoh did. So, we will begin with a focus on hardening of the heart and then proceed to other ways in which both God and the vessels of wrath do the fitting. Recall that Paul cited the oracle of God from the Book of Exodus, writing these words:

"For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.” Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens." (Rom. 9: 17-18 nkjv)

It would be easy to fault God for Pharaoh going back on his word and not letting the people of Israel go and for the Egyptians having to suffer all those plagues of destruction. But, that would be a case of jumping to conclusions. 

Being hardened by God is set in opposition to being shown mercy. To be hardened, therefore, is the result of not being shown mercy or compassion. Second, God is free in his sovereignty to show mercy to whom he wills and to not show mercy to whom he wills; And, that is right for God to do. Mercy that is deserved is not mercy. Such a truth often incites people to question God's moral attributes, especially his fairness. They also are provoked to ask why God chooses to show mercy to one and not to another, they being adverse to the idea that it was not based upon any difference in the ones being shown or not shown mercy. They think that in such a case that God acts arbitrarily or randomly or by a whim and they find it difficult to believe such.

To be arbitrary is to act without reason, without purpose, or without reference to any guiding principle. But biblically and theologically, such a description cannot apply to God. However, God does not owe his creatures an explanation for all his choices and workings. God has a reason for everything he does although what that reason is may not be known to his creatures. We have already seen where James says that God has chosen those who are the poor of this world and who are rich in faith. (James 2: 5) We have already seen where God is said to choose the most inferior of men and things so that his power and grace might be more fully manifested. (I Cor. 1: 26-29) 

So, what is involved in the heart being hardened? What are the effects of it? The larger question is why does God hardens hearts, and how does he harden the heart? And, the chiefest question is how can God be righteous and just if he hardens people's hearts, seeing that the effects of that hardening involve more sin?

"And he hardened Pharaoh's heart, that he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had said. And the LORD said unto Moses, Pharaoh's heart is hardened, he refuseth to let the people go." (Exo. 7: 13-14 kjv)

Here God hardens the heart of Pharaoh and the effect is further disobedience and rebellion against God and his commands. It also involves being stubborn and obstinate in rebellion against God and his laws. There results from this hardening a "strengthening of the resolve" in sinners to stay on their iniquitous course, and a firmer commitment to it. We also must keep in mind that the same God who hardens hearts can also soften them when it pleases him. We must also realize that anyone whose heart is hardened by God already had a hardened heart, and God's hardening is but a further hardening. In other words, God does not harden the heart of anyone whose heart is soft. 

Of course, Pharaoh was not the only one whose heart God hardened. We also read of Sihon the king.

"But Sihon king of Heshbon would not let us pass by him: for the LORD thy God hardened his spirit, and made his heart obstinate, that he might deliver him into thy hand, as appeareth this day." (Deut. 2: 30 kjv)

Here we have the "spirit" hardened rather than the "heart," both being psychological parts of wicked king Sihon that were operated upon by the Lord. In the bible we read of hardened hearts, hardened spirits, hardened necks, and hardened faces. We also see how God in this hardening affected the mood, attitude, disposition, and sentiment of the wicked king. There can be no doubt that God's hardening of the heart and spirit increases the wickedness of people. This can be very difficult to accept for the Christian does not want to believe God to be in any sense a contributing cause of any sin. To soften this hard to swallow truth fact, or to deal with the cognitive dissonance that it often produces, many Christian teachers will say that this is a "judicial hardening" and therefore not unjust. 

This idea says that when a sinner persists in his stubborn resistance to God and righteousness that there then comes a point when God confirms that sinner in his evil course. This hardening is a form of punishment and the effect is not rehabilitation but increased wickedness and condemnation. Just as we have those people who we call "hardened criminals," so too are there such people in regard to disobedience to God and right. If we Google "hardened criminals" we get this AI response:

"The term "hardened criminals" generally refers to individuals who have a long history of criminal activity and are resistant to rehabilitation or change. They are typically characterized by a pattern of repeated offenses, often involving violent or serious crimes. This term suggests that these individuals have become desensitized to the consequences of their actions and are unlikely to be deterred by legal punishments or interventions." 

That is a good description of people who have their hearts and spirits hardened by sin and by God's punishment of it, and by his withdrawal of mercy. It seems that there comes a point in the life of some rebellious sinners where they become hardened criminals, and this point coincides with God's withdrawal or lessening of many of his restraints and hindrances on the sinner's wicked doings, and where he ceases to "strive with man" (Gen. 6: 3), a point where God has reached the limit of his forbearance and longsuffering. It is a point where the conscience has become dead, cauterized, and insensitive to the pricking of the Spirit. Paul spoke of this when he wrote about some after this manner: "speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron" (I Tim. 4: 2 nkjv) "The allusion here is doubtless to the effect of applying a hot iron to the skin. The cauterized part becomes rigid and hard, and is dead to sensibility." (Barnes) We have these same hardened sinners referred to in these words of the same apostle:

"Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness." (Eph. 4: 19 kjv) 

"Past feeling" is from the Greek word "apalgeō" and signifies "to cease to feel pain for" (apo, "from," algeo, "to feel pain;" cp. Eng., "neuralgia"); hence, to be callous, "past feeling," insensible to honor and shame, Eph 4:19." (Vine) Paul elsewhere speaks of the wicked activities arising from a dead conscience. (Heb. 9: 14)

A hardened heart and spirit, or hardened criminals, are stubborn in their resistance to God and right. In their sinning they become “stubborn as a mule.” Spiritually and morally they have become incorrigible, no longer being able to be corrected, improved, or reformed. They are also recalcitrant because they are obstinately defiant against authority or restraint, be it human or divine. This stubborn attitude in sinning and rebelling against God is a great sin. Wrote the prophet: "For rebellion is as the sin of divination, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry." (1 Sam. 15: 23) God described his ancient people as having "a stubborn and rebellious heart" (Jer. 5: 23) The prophet Zechariah also addressed the hardening of the heart, writing:

"They made their hearts as hard as flint and would not listen to the law or to the words that the LORD Almighty had sent by his Spirit through the earlier prophets. So the LORD Almighty was very angry." (Zech. 7: 12 niv)

Here is another case where the heart being hard is the result of what the people are doing to themselves by their continued disobedience to God. But, as we have seen, there are many other places that say that God does this hardening of the heart and spirit. A judicial hardening would be an action by God that follows on the heels of what sinners have already been long doing to themselves. God furthers this hardening. From one perspective a judicial hardening occurs in an instant of time, but from another perspective we see how every time that God and his ways are rejected, the sinner hardens his heart even more, and so the hardening of the heart takes place daily and not all at once. Oftentimes there is a cycle where the heart is hardened towards God, his law, and his authority, and a time when it is softened, until the cycle ceases and the heart remains only hard. 

Of course, we are not told exactly how God does this, and theologians attempt to explain how God does this without it being viewed as a bad thing, as I also hope to do. Certainly it includes, as we have said, God's removal of restraints and mercy shown and his lack of intervention. A person in this condition is no longer being shown mercy by the Lord. Some bible teachers refer to this as "sinning away your day of grace." 

Notice in the above text how one of the causes and continued effects of the heart being made hard is that the "hard hearted person" no longer "listens" to the law or to the word of God. This person is described by Solomon in these words: "He who is often rebuked, and hardens his neck, Will suddenly be destroyed, and that without remedy." (Prov. 29: 1 nkjv) Such people are not easily reformed. In fact, it requires nothing short of omnipotence and the greatest mercy. They have been warned a thousand times about them being on the path that leads to destruction, but they have continually resisted, and each time they refused the exhortations and admonitions, and chose the way of sin, they hardened their hearts even more, and God was there all along saying "okay, go on destroying yourselves then." This is what Jesus said to the stubbornly wicked, saying "Go ahead, then, and complete what your ancestors started!" (Matt. 23: 32 niv) What their ancestors did was wicked and here Jesus says "go ahead" (referring to the fact that they would murder him by crucifixion). Benson's commentary on Matt. 23: 32 says:

"Ye may now be as wicked as they: a word of permission, not of command: as if he had said, I contend with you no longer: I leave you to yourselves: you have conquered: now ye may follow the devices of your own hearts. Ye serpents — Our Lord having now given up all hope of reclaiming them, speaks thus to deter others from the like sins."

How many parents have said to their incorrigible children who persisted in their mischievous ways (or like those who counsel repeat offenders in the justice system), "if you are so dead set on persisting in your evil doing, then so be it, or have it your way; I've done all I am going to do"? Or have said to the stubborn in disgust "go ahead, have it your way"? Or have said "just be stubborn then!" (or "bull headed")

Hardening of the heart is similar to "shaking off the dust of your feet" as a witness against those who reject Christ and persecute his people. The command to “shake the dust off your feet” appears only four times in the New Testament. In each case the command is spoken by Jesus to His disciples when He sent them out two by two (Matthew 10:14; Luke 9:5). In Mark 6:11 Jesus says, “And if any place will not welcome you or listen to you, leave that place and shake the dust off your feet as a testimony against them.” In the Matthew 10 account, Jesus clarifies His meaning: “Truly I tell you, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town” (verse 15).

Shaking the dust off one’s feet conveys the same idea as our modern phrase “I wash my hands of it.” This is what God is saying to Pharaoh and to the sinner when God hardens their hearts. Shaking the dust off the feet is a symbolic indication that one has done all that can be done to help by wise counsel those in a sinful way of life and therefore announces that he will not be responsible for it. It was a statement of finality about people who had been given the truth, labored with in love, and yet who had rejected it. As Paul leaves the Corinthian synagogue, he shakes the dust off his clothing and says, “Your blood be on your own heads," which means in today's common vernacular "I am clear of my responsibility." He then says "from now on I will go to the Gentiles.” (Acts 18: 6) When God hardens the heart of an incorrigible sinner he is in essence saying these very things. This same idea is seen in Paul's words to the rebellious and obstinate Corinthians: "if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant!" (I Cor. 14: 38)

Every time that God said to Pharaoh "let my people go" Pharaoh was stimulated to further resistance and obstinacy. God's word was like a goad or a provocation. God does "provoke to anger." (Deut. 32: 21 kjv) In line with this divine activity we also see God stirring the spirit of evil men to do evil things. So we read:

"And they transgressed against the God of their fathers, and went a whoring after the gods of the people of the land, whom God destroyed before them. And the God of Israel stirred up the spirit of Pul king of Assyria, and the spirit of Tilgathpilneser king of Assyria, and he carried them away, even the Reubenites, and the Gadites, and the half tribe of Manasseh, and brought them unto Halah, and Habor, and Hara, and to the river Gozan, unto this day." (I Chron. 5: 25-26 kjv)

So, was the kidnapping of the listed tribes of Israel an evil deed by the Assyrian kings? Yes. Did God use it for good, that is, to punish those tribes and thereby uphold the justice of his government? Yes.

So, God hardens hearts knowing that it will lead the one hardened becoming more resistant to God and his ways? Yes. Does God withdraw his grace and mercy knowing that it will lead to the one being denied committing more sin? Yes. So, does God stir the spirit of stubborn and rebellious sinners so that they do their evil for righteous God's righteous ends? Yes. That may not seem just nor the best thing to do if the rehabilitation of the sinner is paramount in the mind of God. But, that is not always the case.

Solomon also spoke of "A wicked man hardens his face, But as for the upright, he establishes his way." (Prov. 21: 29 nkjv)

Notice that the man is wicked before he hardens his face. He was hard hearted even before he acts out that hardness of heart. Every time he hardens his heart by refusing to hear correction or rebuke he becomes even more hard. This is the meaning of the word "adamant." Though it originally referred to a kind of rock, yet it came to refer to a person who refuses correction, who stubbornly resists being persuaded. Notice the words of the prophet Zechariah:

"But they refused to hearken, and pulled away the shoulder, and stopped their ears, that they should not hear. Yea, they made their hearts as an adamant stone, lest they should hear the law, and the words which the LORD of hosts hath sent in his spirit by the former prophets: therefore came a great wrath from the LORD of hosts." (Zeck. 7: 11-12 kjv)

When a person gets in this condition he seals his fate. Changing him, or reforming him, becomes difficult, easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than to repent.

In the next chapter we will continue this area of our subject.

Divine Justice Issues (XXV)

"20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? 22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?" (Rom. 9: 20-24 nkjv)

One of the questions debated by theologians concerns whether God is active in any sense in his making vessels of wrath (or unto dishonor) versus making vessels of mercy (or unto honor). Some say God is not active at all in people becoming vessels of wrath. Some others say that God is the sole creator of those vessels, and that the vessels themselves are totally passive in becoming such. 

That there is some difference between how God makes the vessels for dishonor and vessels for honor is seen in how Paul speaks of each. The latter clearly has God as the one who is credited with making the vessels of mercy for the wording is - "which he had prepared beforehand for glory." The former is worded differently, having these words - "endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared ("fitted" KJV) for destruction." In the latter case we do not have Paul saying "vessels of wrath which he prepared." Does that mean that God was not the Potter who made the vessels for dishonor? Some want to say so based upon how Paul changed the wording in both instances. 

"Prepared For" 

Further, what does Paul mean when he says that the vessels God "made unto dishonor," styled "vessels of wrath," were "prepared for destruction"? On the other hand, what does he mean when he says that the vessels God made for honor were "prepared beforehand for glory"? Did God do the preparing in both instances, or only in regard to the vessels of mercy? If God is the Potter who makes both kinds of vessels then why interpret "prepared for destruction" as excluding God from being active in that preparation? 

Barnes commentary on "prepared for (fitted) to destruction":

"Fitted - κατηρτισμένα katērtismena. This word properly means to "restore; to place in order; to render complete; to supply a defect; to fit to, or adapt to, or prepare for;" see Matthew 4:21, "Were mending their nets." Galatians 6:1, "restore such an one, etc." In this place it is a participle, and means those who are suited for or "adapted to" destruction; those whose characters are such as to deserve destruction, or as to make destruction proper."

It is a good translation to translate as "the vessels of wrath suited for destruction." In that case Paul would simply be saying that it is "fitting" or appropriate for these vessels to be destroyed. We may therefore say that people make themselves sinful and evil and by doing this they are ever fitting themselves for their ordained destruction, or perhaps that something in their environment or life's circumstances is fitting them, but we may also say that God in some sense is also fitting or preparing them for destruction. 

As stated, interesting is the fact that Paul did not use the same language in describing the vessels for dishonor as when he spoke of the vessels of mercy and honor. Paul did not say of the vessels for dishonor - "which he had prepared beforehand," as he said of the vessels of mercy. In league with this observation, Barnes added these words:

"In this place there is not the semblance of a declaration that "God had prepared them, or fitted them for destruction." It is a simple declaration that they were in fact suited for it, without making an affirmation about the manner in which they became so."

I think that is true except we must not go too far and totally leave God's willing and working out of the equation, for the text also says that it is the same potter who "makes" one vessel for honor also makes another vessel for dishonor. If God as Potter makes the vessels for dishonor, how is that nullified by Paul's implied statement that says he is not the one who fitted them? Can we say that the vessels made themselves what they were, thus making themselves their own potters? 

So, we must say that in both cases it is not an either/or case where it must be all of God or all of the creature, for it is true that making vessels to dishonor has both God and the vessels themselves involved in making them so, fitting or preparing them, "for destruction"; And, it is likewise true that making vessels to honor has both God and the vessels themselves involved in making them, or preparing them, "for glory." We have already shown this to be true from II Tim. 2: 20-21. But, more on that shortly.

Barnes also wrote:

"A reader of the English Bible may, perhaps, sometimes draw the impression that God had suited them for this. But this is not affirmed; and there is an evident design in not affirming it, and a distinction made between them and the vessels of mercy which ought to be regarded. In relation to the latter it is expressly affirmed that God suited or prepared them for glory; see Romans 9:23, "Which he had afore prepared unto glory." The same distinction is remarkably striking in the account of the last judgment in Matthew 25:34, Matthew 25:41. To the righteous, Christ will say, "Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you, etc." To the wicked, "Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels;" not said to have been originally prepared "for them." It is clear, therefore, that God intends to keep the great truth in view, that he prepares his people "by direct agency" for heaven; but that he exerts "no such agency" in preparing the wicked for destruction."

Again, though we agree for the most part with what the learned theologian says, yet he seems to have forgotten that the text states that God does in fact "make" both the vessels of wrath and the vessels of mercy. If God did not in any sense make dishonorable vessels of wrath out of the clay, then why do the vessels for dishonor say to the divine Potter "why have you made us like this?" 

The fact is, being made a vessel for honor and glory is the work of God, and yet, we also know that in a secondary sense the vessels of mercy make themselves such. It is the same way in the new testament where salvation is said to be God's work and yet is also said to be the work of the creature. In a preceding chapter we cited the words of Paul to Timothy to prove this fact, who wrote:

"If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work." (II Tim. 2: 21 nkjv)

So, both God and saved believers are active in making them into vessels unto honor. Consider also that many texts say that "God has saved us" (II Tim. 1:9) and many that say "save yourselves" (Acts 2: 40). Such seeming contradictions have lead some Hyper Calvinists (and Hardshell Baptists) to say that the verses speaking of salvation being the work of God is an eternal salvation from sin, hell and death, but those verses speaking of salvation as being the result of the sinner's action, is a time salvation from temporal ills, having nothing to do with eternal salvation. Other Hyper Calvinists will say that putting any creature conditions on salvation is a teaching of salvation by works or by law keeping. But, that is a case of jumping to extremes. 

The answer to this seeming contradiction is to see that a believer's willing and doing as a secondary cause of his salvation and his being made into a vessel of mercy for honor and glory, but God is the first or primary cause. Many scriptures show this to be the case. Recall Isaiah's testimony - "you Lord have wrought all our works in us." (26: 12) So, if God has chosen to make a person a vessel of mercy for honor and glory, then that making process will include God causing that person to strive to make himself such a vessel. A person who does not "purge himself" from the things Paul mentions to Timothy will not become a vessel for honor.

The same is true with the unbeliever being made into a vessel of wrath and for dishonor. The unbeliever is very much making himself, or preparing himself, for destruction by his sinful rebellious course of life. But, does that mean that God is not at all a cause in the sinners' making himself a vessel to dishonor? Obviously not, as we have seen. The text plainly says that God is the one who as the Potter makes BOTH kinds of vessels. So, to totally exclude God from making or preparing vessels for wrath and dishonor is going to an extreme, probably as a way to deal with the cognitive dissonance that the idea of God's involvement in that ignoble product of the Potter.

So, we cannot agree with Dr. Barnes when he says "he prepares his people "by direct agency" for heaven; but that he exerts "no such agency" in preparing the wicked for destruction." Does he mean God has no agency at all, or no "direct" agency? Does he have an indirect agency? The fact is, both kinds of vessels were the result of the Potter's mind and workmanship. You cannot claim that God only makes vessels for honor and does not make vessels for dishonor. The text plainly says that God makes "one vessel unto honor and another unto dishonor." So, why do so many Christian bible students shrink back from agreeing with God when he says that he makes vessels for dishonor and wrath? They don't have much reluctance for saying that God makes vessels of mercy and prepares them for honor and glory, but they have strong resistance to believing that God makes the vessels of wrath and that he, in any sense, "fits" or "prepares" them for destruction. 

Yes, there is a distinction in how Paul speaks of the making and preparing of the vessels of honor and the making and preparing of the vessels of dishonor. Paul positively says that it is God who "afore prepared for glory" the vessels of mercy, but he did not use the same language with regard to the preparation of the vessels of wrath for destruction. As already emphasized, he used language where it is not clear who is doing the "fitting" or "preparing" of the vessels of wrath. Paul does not say "who God fitted for destruction." That is not to say that God cannot in any sense be active in fitting the vessels of wrath, for again, the text says that God makes of the same lump both kinds of vessels. Therefore, we cannot say that God cannot be in any sense the one who does the fitting for destruction. The fact is, God and the non elect vessels for dishonor are both causes in this fitting and we cannot exclude either one without diminishing our understanding of things and denying what is clearly stated in scripture. 

"Fitted" (or "prepared") is either passive or middle voice in "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction." We cannot know for sure which it is because the passive and middle voice in Greek are written the same way. So, we must rely on context and syntax to discern which it is. Among commentators it is generally understood as a passive voice construction, meaning the vessels of wrath are being prepared for destruction by an external force (God) rather than preparing themselves. Some interpretations however suggest the middle voice, meaning the vessels are preparing themselves for destruction. The context of Romans 9 emphasizes God's sovereignty and his right to choose who will be saved or not, which supports the idea that God is the one who prepares the vessels for their respective purposes. Some commentators suggest that the participle is to be construed adjectivally as "fit for destruction" with no implication intended about who did the fitting. That is quite plausible. But, it does not negate what is clear in the text which says God is the one who fashions the clay into vessels of wrath. 

The case of Pharaoh illustrates what Paul means by the Potter making, fitting, or preparing the vessels for dishonor. Pharaoh's heart being hardened is an example where he was being fitted or prepared for destruction; And, as we have observed before, the texts in Exodus say that God hardened his heart but also says that Pharaoh hardened his heart. This being true, my sub thesis is proven to be true which says that both God and Pharaoh were active in Pharaoh being made a vessel of wrath or vessel for dishonor and being "fitted" or "prepared" for destruction. 

Consider also the fact that saying that God made, fitted, fashioned, or prepared for wrath and for dishonor is what is stated elsewhere in scripture. Solomon said: "The LORD has made all for Himself, Yes, even the wicked for the day of doom." (Prov. 16: 4 nkjv) That is precisely what we see happening in Romans chapter nine in God making vessels of wrath from the same lump of clay from which he also made vessels of mercy. It is also what the apostle Peter said when he spoke of some as being "like natural brute beasts made to be caught and destroyed" (II Peter 2: 12). 

Dr. John Piper writes the following (See here - emphasis mine):

"There are at least four views: 1) God is the one who fits (or creates) the vessels of wrath for destruction; 2) the voice is middle not passive and thus means that the vessels of wrath have fitted themselves for destruction (Bengel, Gnomon, II, 86; Beyschlag, Theodicee 65); 3) the participle is to be construed adjectivally as "fit for destruction" with no implication intended about who did the fitting (Lagrange, Romains, 240; Cranfield, Romans, II, 495f; Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 261; Schlier, Roemerbrief, 301); 4) the passive is intended to express a mystery no human can break through."

Personally, I think there is truth in each of these views. Piper continued:

"I cannot escape the implication that anti-Calvinistic apologetic is in control when in the next verse we are forbidden to suggest that the divine Potter is at work in the phrase "vessels of wrath fitted for destruction." Moreover, in view of the parallels between Romans 9:22 and 9:17 (see Section 2), a most natural suggestion is that Pharaoh serves as an example of a "vessel of wrath fitted for destruction." And since Paul's inference from the Pharaoh story is that "God hardens whom he wills" (9:18), the most natural suggestion from the context is that "fitted for destruction" (9:22) refers precisely to this divine hardening."

I think that is evidently true and not only from the statement that God hardens whom he wills, but also from the fact that the text says that the same Potter, from the same lump of clay, makes vessels for dishonor. Further, as we will see even more, the hardening of the heart, with all that is involved in that, is one of the ways that the vessels of wrath are "fitted" or "prepared" for destruction. That being so, both God and Pharaoh were involved in this fitting.

Piper wrote further:

"I conclude, therefore, primarily from the context of Romans 9 (but also with some corroboration from Paul's Jewish milieu; cf also Apocalypse of Abraham 22) that it accords best with Paul's intention to see the divine agency behind the passive κατηρτισμένα in Romans 9:22."

Again, that is clearly evident from the fact that the vessels of wrath are said to be of the Potter's making. The questions then become 1) whether the Potter who makes the vessels of wrath is the same one who fits and prepares those same vessels, and 2) whether it is right and just for God to do this.

Piper wrote further:

"We can only guess why Paul used this passive verb in reference to vessels of wrath and an active verb (προητοίμασεν) in reference to vessels of mercy." 

But, it is not certain that the verb in question is indeed a passive verb for it could be middle voice, as we have previously observed. However, I do agree that the context favors the passive view. However, some things may be viewed as both active and passive and we have numerous examples of this in scripture. That is because we see things from different perspectives. Viewed from one perspective the fitting and preparing is passive, but viewed from another perspective, the fitting is active. When Pharaoh's heart was hardened by God we see where God was active and Pharaoh was passive. When Pharaoh's heart is hardened by Pharaoh we see where Pharaoh is active. 

Piper wrote further:

"Both kinds of vessels were made by the Potter because he had use for both kinds. Through the one kind he uses it to reveal his mercy and grace and through the other he reveals his wrath against sin. Through both of them he also manifests his omnipotence and sovereignty." 

This statement must be ever kept in mind in studying Romans chapter nine. In the next chapter we will speak further on what the bible says about people's hearts being hardened by God. We will also address whether God's unconditional choice of sinners makes God to be partial or a "respecter of persons." 

Divine Justice Issues (XXIV)

"But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, 

that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light." 

(I Peter 2: 9 nkjv)

Is God unjust in choosing some to save and not others? Choosing a person to salvation is not the problem with many, but his not choosing other persons gives many difficulty. Favoring one (the word 'grace' denotes favor) is also not much objected to, although "favoritism" is looked upon as bad. God's choice not to favor or not to give grace is what is often resisted. Most want rather to believe that God equally favors all, thinking that such a belief makes God more fair and just, more loving and good, if he chooses everyone. But, a choice implies a refusal or rejection of others. So, a choice of Trump to be president was a rejection of Harris. So we read where the psalmist says: "Moreover he refused the tabernacle of Joseph, and chose not the tribe of Ephraim: But chose the tribe of Judah, the mount Zion which he loved." (Psa. 78: 67-68 kjv) God chose Isaac but chose not, or refused, Ishmael. God chose and loved Jacob, but chose and loved not Esau. To choose is to accept and to choose not means to refuse or to reject. This is the chief idea in God "hating" Esau. Some say that by "hate" is meant "love less" and there is some support for this in scripture. Notice these words about how Jacob felt about his wife Rachel over his wife Leah:

 "And he went in also unto Rachel, and he loved also Rachel more than Leah, and served with him yet seven other years. And when the LORD saw that Leah was hated, he opened her womb: but Rachel was barren." (Gen. 29: 30-31 kjv)

Here Jacob loved Rachel more than Leah, or we might say, Leah was loved less than Rachel. And, the text says that being loved less was all the same as being hated. But, even if we grant that God hating Esau meant that God loved him less, how then does that scenario make God to appear fair? Is it fair for God to love one more than another for no seeming reason? Further, there are scriptures that indicate that God has a general love for all his creatures viewed merely as creatures, just like he is good to all, both godly and ungodly. But, the scriptures also speak of a special love that God has for his elect, for his people, that is much greater than his common love for all. By God hating Esau or all those not chosen is not meant as an emotion in God, but a choice to reject. We may read the text therefore in this way - "Jacob have I accepted and Esau have I rejected." Involved in this rejection (or non election) is the loss of favor or grace and a denial of good things as a result. If salvation is a choice to salvation (and it is), then to not be chosen is a denial of salvation. We see that in many texts. Notice these words in Romans:

"Even so then, at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace. And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work. What then? Israel has not obtained what it seeks; but the elect have obtained it, and the rest were blinded." (Rom. 11: 5-7 nkjv)

In Romans chapter nine Paul speaks of "the purpose of God according to election," and here in chapter eleven he speaks of "a remnant according to the election of grace." We also in this text once again see how God's choice was unconditional, being of grace and not of works, a thing Paul emphasized in the ninth chapter. And in light of this fact, Paul rhetorically asks "what then?" In other words, what can we deduce from the fact that God's election is of grace, or is totally unmerited, i.e. "not of him who wills or runs"? We can deduce that it is God's election of a man that makes all the difference in the world. 

When Paul says "Israel has not obtained what it seeks" he is stating the same thing he has stated in other places in his writings. Even a few verses later in this chapter he writes:

"What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness of faith; but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness. Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone." (9: 30-32 nkjv) 

Here is another thing that Israel did not obtain by their own works in law keeping, i.e. "attaining to righteousness," or righteous standing with God. Further, "they sought it not by faith." So, we have two reasons why Paul's lost Jewish brothers were not saved, first because they were not chosen by God and second because they sought salvation by their own works. They did not see salvation as an unmerited gift of divine grace and mercy but as a reward. They did not look for salvation through the Messiah. 

Election by God is what brings God to enlighten those he has chosen. To not be elected ends in not attaining to righteousness (and justification), but also in staying blind, so Paul says "the rest were blinded." God's election is what causes Israel to obtain what Israel seeks after, which also includes the divine blessing and promises of eternal life, immortality, and a glorious inheritance ("seek for glory, honor, and immortality" Rom. 2:7). 

Many Christians believe in election, but not in unconditional election. Some simply say that God elected those who he foresaw would believe and argued that this is what Peter meant when he wrote: "Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied." (I Peter 1: 2 kjv) Others will say that God's choice of sinners to save is illustrated in God's choosing of Gideon's special military forces. That incident is recorded in these words:

"2 And the Lord said to Gideon, "The people who are with you are too many for Me to give the Midianites into their hands, lest Israel claim glory for itself against Me, saying, 'My own hand has saved me.' 3 Now therefore, proclaim in the hearing of the people, saying, 'Whoever is fearful and afraid, let him turn and depart at once from Mount Gilead.' " And twenty-two thousand of the people returned, and ten thousand remained. 4 But the Lord said to Gideon, "The people are still too many; bring them down to the water, and I will test them for you there. Then it will be, that of whom I say to you, 'This one shall go with you,' the same shall go with you; and of whomever I say to you, 'This one shall not go with you,' the same shall not go." 5 So he brought the people down to the water. And the Lord said to Gideon, "Everyone who laps from the water with his tongue, as a dog laps, you shall set apart by himself; likewise everyone who gets down on his knees to drink." 6 And the number of those who lapped, putting their hand to their mouth, was three hundred men; but all the rest of the people got down on their knees to drink water. 7 Then the Lord said to Gideon, "By the three hundred men who lapped I will save you, and deliver the Midianites into your hand. Let all the other people go, every man to his place." (Judges 7: 2-7 nkjv)

The three hundred who were finally chosen to be the small group whom God would use to conquer the Midianites were chosen because they cupped water into the hand and brought the water up to their mouths and rejected those who knelt down and lapped like a dog. The former showed that they were skilled in military things and superior to the others in keeping their eyes circumspect for a possible attack by the enemy. In response to this we have a several responses.

First, as we have seen, God did not choose any for salvation who were better than others. Over and over again the biblical writers affirm that God's choice "was not of him who wills or runs but of God who shows mercy." Second, even if we grant that God's choice of sinners was based upon foreseeing their good works or faith and repentance, it is still God who produced those good works and gave people that faith. (Isa. 26: 12) Third, as we have seen, Paul says that God chose the base things, the poor, and the inferior, rather than the superior (I Cor. 1). Fourth, in this election based upon superiority there would be occasion for boasting, whereas in God's election and salvation there is no room for boasting. 

Consider also that in Peter's words election is "through" sanctification of the Spirit and "unto" obedience. If election is unto obedience, it cannot be a result of it. 

Consider also that God's foreknowledge follows God's "determinate counsel" (Acts 2: 23), so that he foresees what he has predestined or ordained to be. So also James says "known unto God are all his works from the beginning" (Acts 15: 18). Also, since God is said to have "wrought all our works in us" (Isa. 26: 12), then obviously he predetermined to do those works in eternity and foresaw his own works.

Consider also these words of Christ:

"You did not choose Me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit, and that your fruit should remain, that whatever you ask the Father in My name He may give you." (John 15: 16 nkjv)

In this text you have reference to both election and predestination (the latter denoted by the word "appointed") and it clearly says that the Lord's choice of the apostles was not based upon their choice of him. So, if we ask the question - "who chose who first" we must say that Christ chose the apostles first and that their choice of Christ followed. The Arminians will often reply that this was a choice to apostleship and not to salvation. However, the context makes it clear that Jesus is not referring to the apostles only. He also says this to all his disciples in that chapter: "If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you." (vs. 19) That cannot be limited to the apostles. Of all believers it may be said that they were chosen and appointed to salvation and to bear fruit that will last forever. 

Purpose of God in his Longsuffering

In the text of Romans chapter nine Paul says that God "endures with much longsuffering" those who are  described as "vessels of wrath." What is God's purpose in this longsuffering? Is it an act of mercy or common grace? Or is it his purpose to increase the wrath of God upon them and to further their destruction? I think both. We know that one of the purposes of God in his forbearance and longsuffering towards those not chosen is salvation for Peter writes:

"The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance." (II Peter 3: 9 nkjv)

This appears to be a contradiction. God has not chosen sinner A to be saved and yet he is longsuffering to A in order that A might be saved. We might also cite the word of God to Ezekiel which says - "Say to them: ‘As I live,’ says the Lord GOD, ‘I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn, turn from your evil ways! For why should you die, O house of Israel?’" (Eze. 33: 11 nkjv) Or, we might cite these words of the apostle Paul: "who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." (I Tim. 2: 4 nkjv)

The solution to this conundrum is to say that God does in some sense, or on some level, desire the salvation of all but in another sense or on another level does not. Even the deniers of unconditional election must also acknowledge this truth if they agree with scripture which says that hearing and believing the word of God is a necessary means or condition for being saved. Let us consider all those millions of people who lived and died without ever knowing anything about Jehovah, Jesus Christ, or what is taught in the bible. If God wanted them to be saved, why did he not have the gospel preached to them? It seems that he did not really desire their salvation. We can certainly say that none of them were saved for they must hear the word of God to be saved, as we have seen. 

God desiring the salvation of all sinners does not negate him choosing to insure that some will be saved, making certain that they, the elect, will be provided all the means of salvation. 

Further, God is not unlike us in that we have levels or degrees to our desiring, willing, wanting, etc. Some things we want more than other things. That is why it is entirely appropriate for us to say "I especially want..." So we may say that God wants all to be saved but he especially wants the elect to be saved. This is why many theologians speak of "common grace" (and love) and "special grace." It is also why the word "especially" or "particularly" is used in the bible in regards to God's willing and desiring.

"For to this end we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe." (I Tim. 4: 10 nkjv)

The Greek word "malista" translated "especially" ('specially' kjv) is elsewhere in the NT translated as "most of all," or "chiefly." Notice these two texts with the same word:

"As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith." (Gal. 6: 10 nkjv)

"But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever." (I Tim. 5: 8 nkjv)

The text above in Timothy does not say that God "equally desires" all men to be saved. The fact is God desires the salvation of some more than others. We might say that those who God providentially provided the means of salvation manifests that God desires their salvation more than those who were not provided with that revelation. Some people are born in a time and place where there is abundance of means and opportunities for coming to a knowledge of the truth and becoming a believer. Others are born in a context where there is little or no such means and opportunities. 

So, when the text says that God "endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath" (also called "vessels unto dishonor") it may well be for their salvation. It could also mean that God is merely "putting up with" (which is another way to define longsuffering) the wicked not elected in order to increase their condemnation. I think it is true in both senses in certain cases. Recall that Peter connected longsuffering with salvation when he said "God is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance" but also said "and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation" (II Peter 3: 15 nkjv). That text does not say that everyone to whom God is longsuffering will be saved, but that the longsuffering of God is intended to lead to salvation. In some cases God's longsuffering is a means of bringing salvation, in other cases it is a means of increasing condemnation. 

Paul says that the longsuffering that God shows towards the vessels of wrath and for dishonor is "much longsuffering." God is tolerating or putting up with those who are the objects of his wrath and it is mostly to show them mercy and afford them opportunities to turn themselves around. Pharaoh hardened his heart and broke his promise ten times and God showed him much longsuffering during that drama between God and Moses and Pharaoh. Lord God put up with a lot of Pharaoh's shenanigans. 

It will involve a couple more chapters before we can conclude our examination of the doctrine of election as it relates to the justice of God.