Divine Justice Issues (XXII)

In Romans chapter nine Paul is replying to the accusation of the Jews against him. They accused him of indirectly teaching that God's word of promise to Abraham and Israel had failed (or become ineffectual) if Paul is correct in saying that many Israelites will not be saved. The objectors erroneously believed that the promises made to Abraham's seed and to Israel were made to those who are physically or by nature or birth the seed of Abraham and an Israelite. Paul says that this was their error. All those who are believers in the one true God, as Abraham, and who believe in the Messiah, the eminent seed of Abraham, are the true or real seed of Abraham and the true Israel of God. 

He began his rebuttal to this objection by showing that it cannot be as his objectors imagine, who thought that anyone who is born a Jew is thereby entitled to salvation. In the time of Jesus, there was a prominent belief among the Jews that they would be saved expressly because they were Jewish. The Jews thought that they inherited salvation through being the physical descendants of Abraham. The New Testament has a running theme of countering this belief. We see this erroneous belief in various places in the new testament. Notice these words of John the Baptist:

"Therefore bear fruits worthy of repentance, and do not think to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father. ' For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones." (Matt. 3: 8-9 nkjv)

John the Baptist went right to the heart of the problem with most of the Jews. They thought that they were God's "elect" and his high favorites, and therefore heirs of eternal life and of God's promised inheritance, simply because they were of Abraham's physical seed and were Israelites according to the flesh. John says that many Jews will not be saved but will be eternally condemned.

Jesus also ran into these people and they said to the Lord “We are Abraham’s descendants, and have never been in bondage to anyone. How can You say, ‘You will be made free’?” (John 8: 33 nkjv)

Jesus, however, did not share their opinion and like his forerunner attacked this "damnable heresy" (II Peter 2: 1) These Jews thought that they were not in bondage in any sense, surely not in slavery to sin. They had a false opinion of themselves, thinking they were not in any danger of hell fire, when the truth was just the reverse. Jesus responds to this false ideology in these words:

"37 “I know that you are Abraham’s descendants (physically speaking or according to the flesh), but you seek to kill Me, because My word has no place in you. 38 I speak what I have seen with My Father, and you do what you have seen with your father.” 39 They answered and said to Him, “Abraham is our father.” Jesus said to them, “If you were Abraham’s children (they are not spiritually Abraham's children), you would do the works of Abraham. 40 But now you seek to kill Me, a Man who has told you the truth which I heard from God. Abraham did not do this. 41 You do the deeds of your father.” Then they said to Him, “We were not born of fornication; we have one Father—God.” 42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and came from God; nor have I come of Myself, but He sent Me. 43 Why do you not understand My speech? Because you are not able to listen to My word. 44 You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it. 45 But because I tell the truth, you do not believe Me. 46 Which of you convicts Me of sin? And if I tell the truth, why do you not believe Me? 47 He who is of God hears God’s words; therefore you do not hear, because you are not of God.” (37-47)

Thus, both the Baptist and Christ uprooted this common false belief among the Jews; And, it is that same belief that is behind the objector's argument that Paul first addresses in Romans chapter nine. We will pick up where we left off in the last chapter.

"10 And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even by our father Isaac 11 (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), 12 it was said to her, "The older shall serve the younger." 13 As it is written, "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated." (Rom. 9: 1-3, 6-13 nkjv)

In the last chapter we examined the previous verses and noted that Paul told his audience how and why it was that Isaac was chosen instead of Ishmael to be the true heir of the Abrahamic promises. We observed how Isaac was chosen to his destiny by God before he was ever born and that God's choice of him was not based upon anything he did or did not do, but upon God's own choice and decision. Ishmael was rejected because he was not chosen and because his birth was not of the Spirit or working of God, but was rather a birth of the flesh and by the workings of Abraham and the slave Hagar. Now he will show us another example of the same thing in the choice of Jacob and the rejection of Esau. Wrote Paul:

"What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not!" (vs. 14) 

By the word "unrighteousness" we may also add "injustice" as some translations indicate as well as do nearly all bible teachers and scholars. Apparently some objected to the idea that being a child of the promise, or the seed of Abraham, or an Israelite, by the sole choice and work of God pictured God as being unfair, yea, even a cruel tyrant. This is the second criticism by another set of objectors in this chapter. 

The first objection said that Paul's teachings led to the conclusion that God's promise had failed in accomplishment. The next objection is that if Paul's teaching is true about election, then God would be unjust. So, how does Paul respond to this second objection? 

First, he strongly denounces as false the accusation. Paul believes in the justice of God and he does not believe that God's choice of Isaac and his rejection of Ishmael was unjust, nor was his choice of Jacob over Esau. Likewise he does not believe it is unjust for God to define who he considers to be the "children of God" or "children (or seed) of Abraham." It seems that Paul's objector thinks it would be just and fair for God to choose those who are in some way better than others and to reject others who are in some way inferior to others. However, the case examples of Isaac and Ishmael, and Jacob and Esau, disprove the idea that Isaac and Jacob were chosen because of something they did that was good and that Ishmael and Esau were rejected because they did something that was bad.

After vehemently denying that his doctrine has the consequences that his opponents say that it has, i.e. that God is unjust in Paul's doctrine of unconditional election, he then will give other rebuttal arguments that show that God did choose and that it was just for him to do so. After firmly denying the accusation that his doctrine made God unjust or pictured him as doing the wrong thing, Paul wrote:

"15 For He says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion." 16 So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to 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." 18 Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens. 

In these verses Paul is defending his proposition that God is just and right in his election of Isaac over Ishmael, and of Jacob over Esau, and by extension, to any one person over another person. He argues that God claims the prerogative to show mercy, compassion, or favor to one and not to another. Paul says that God has the sovereign right to determine the destiny of any of his creatures and to give blessing and good things to any he so pleases and apart from any merit or works on the part of the ones he chooses. He may decide to show mercy to one and to "harden" others as he wills. Paul argues that God can do this and it be right for him to do so. Also, it is implied that God may do things that it would be wrong for any creature to do. God has creator rights. 

Notice the words highlighted above in red. The words "so then" is a conclusion. It is a deduction from a premise already stated. That premise says that God the Creator is the sole determiner of any creature's destiny. It is an "if, then" argument. If God is the one who decides whether to show mercy to one and not to another, then we can conclude that no creature determines his own destiny, i.e. "it is not of him who wills (or chooses it) and not of him who runs (works for it)." Someone might ask - "can't it be both of God and of the creature?" Or, "Does one exclude the other?"  

We may also say that if a person's interpretation of Paul's doctrine of election in Romans chapter nine does 1) not provoke people to say that you make God unjust, and does not bring people to 2) conclude that election by God is not of him who wills or works, then your interpretation is false. 

It was not that way in the case of Isaac. Isaac being the chosen of God and being born of the Spirit and becoming the recognized seed of Abraham was not as a result of Isaac's choosing or doing. 

Paul also shows how God was right and just in his sovereignty to choose a different destiny for Pharaoh. He is an example of one who God chose not to show mercy and compassion, one he chose not to choose to own and bless, but who God rather chose to harden his heart and disown. Paul cites the word of God to Pharaoh - "even for this purpose have I raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth." God used Pharaoh and denied him good in order to bring about a greater good. God was saying that Pharaoh exists for the purpose God intended. By "raised up" would include Pharaoh's birth, rearing, and his coming to power in Egypt. Like we saw in previous chapters, Pharaoh would be one example of those who Peter described as having been created for the purpose of being destroyed just like brute beasts. (II Peter 2: 12) 

When people hear Paul say these things they generally find it hard to swallow and think how bad a view of God it is to think that he would choose to favor some unconditionally and to not favor others. That is why they say "there is then injustice with God." Paul gives another of his objector's response to this doctrine of the apostle, writing - "You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?" 

Again we say that we can discern Paul's doctrine of election by examining the kinds of objections that people made to it. They thought it made God look unjust and unfair, yea, even cruel. They also thought that it made God appear to punish someone for merely being the kind of being he made him to be. Why fault Pharaoh for his hardened heart if God was the one who hardened it? Why fault Pharaoh for opposing God since God brought glory to himself through Pharaoh's destruction? How can God justly condemn Pharaoh? 

We dealt with this type of reasoning when we justified God in his willing evil to exist. We showed that he willed it because he determined to bring greater good from it. Pharaoh was evil, an evil that God raised up, and he brought himself good by it.

Of course, Paul does not mean to say that Pharaoh was not at fault for his heart being hardened and for being the evil man that he was. The same scriptures that say God hardened his heart also say that Pharaoh hardened his own heart. God did not make Pharaoh a sinner, although God hardening his heart and removing his divine restraints upon him furthered his evil acts. Just because God suffered him to be born, knowing what he would do and become, does not make God unjust. God did the right thing in raising up this wicked man and in hardening his heart. That good was that God 1) revealed his omnipotence and sovereignty, and 2) made known his name in all the earth. Surely many people came to know the Lord and be saved by coming to know the name of the Lord via his destruction of Pharaoh. 

By the question "for who has resisted his will?" we discover a few important things. From these words the objectors that Paul is rebutting are granting that whatever God wills to be shall in fact be. Of course, in the bible there are two usages for the "will of God." There is God's will as expressed in commands or law, such as "thou shall not steal." When a person steals the will of God is not done. But, there is also another use of that term. That use is seen in the above text. There is a divine will that cannot be frustrated or kept from being realized or fulfilled, that is, it cannot be resisted. Men resist the prescriptive will of God every time they disobey God. But, there is a will that cannot be resisted. We might say this is what is meant by "the determinate counsel" of God (Acts 2: 23) or what he has "predestined." (Eph. 1: 5; Rom. 8: 30) It is what Paul alludes to when he speaks of God as "working all things after the counsel of his own will." (Eph. 1: 11) And Job refers to it when says - "But he is in one mind, and who can turn him? and what his soul desireth, even that he doeth." (Job 23: 13 kjv)

So, did God create Pharaoh for the purpose of damning him? Yes, in one sense, but not in another. If we grant that God has foreknowledge, then he knows who will go through life without ever being saved. That being so, why does he simply not keep such people from being born? Recall that Jesus said of Judas that it would have been better had he never been born. (Matt. 26: 24) It would have been better too, in one sense, had Pharaoh never been born (the same with men like Hitler). In another sense, however, it was good that he was born for God brought himself glory and made himself known by Pharaoh being born. Every person who God foreknows will live and die in sin are nevertheless brought into existence by God. So, God does bring people into the world knowing that it will mean their eternal damnation. 

As we showed in the opening chapters when dealing with the problem of evil and theodicy, God creates or wills the existence of evil and evil men because he intends to bring forth good out of it. This he did in the case of Pharaoh, yea, and in the case of every evil man who dies in his sins. If that is not true, then why does he simply keep those people from ever being born? We may not be able to see how God's allowing Hitler to be born brought forth more good than evil in a cost-benefit analysis, but we can believe it anyway for we trust God and he knows more of the effects than we do.

"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?" (14-24)

The word "power" is from the Greek word "exousia" and primarily denotes "authority" (from the verb exesti, "it is lawful"), although power in the sense of might or strength is not excluded. Paul is justifying God and defending the rightness of his ways in presenting this doctrine of election and predestination. The objector is not denying that God is the Almighty, but whether he is right or just or has the rightful authority to create one group of people for a good end and others for an evil end. Any potter has power over the clay as respects mere strength. The clay is powerless in the hand of the potter. But, does the potter have free license to make whatever he wants from the clay? Further, why does a potter or manufacturer make various kinds of products? Wrote the same apostle:

"But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver, but also of wood and clay, some for honor and some for dishonor. Therefore if anyone cleanses himself from the latter, he will be a vessel for honor, sanctified and useful for the Master, prepared for every good work." (II Tim. 2: 20-21 nkjv)

In God's world or in the world of humans ("great house"), God has created different peoples. These people are likened to "vessels" and says that there are two kinds of vessels (cups, containers, etc.). One kind of vessel is "for dishonor" and another kind is "for honor." This text therefore is a companion to the verses above from Romans chapter nine about the potter and the clay and his making vessels to honor and to dishonor. The difference however is seen in that in Romans Paul says that a person is a vessel unto honor or to dishonor by the hand of God and that people are merely passive in becoming the kind of vessel God wills, but the text in Timothy says that a person becoming a vessel unto honor is by doing the things Paul mentions. So, how do we harmonize those seemingly contradictory texts?

We have stated a truth many times and now state it again. There are things that the bible says that God does and yet also says that people do those very things. God did A and the creature did A. The question becomes in what sense it is God's work and in what sense it is the creature's work? We have already shown how the bible says that God hardened Pharaoh's heart and also says that Pharaoh hardened his own heart. Is that a contradiction? No, because they are showing how both God and Pharaoh were causes, but not in the same sense. There are many kinds of causes. We have already spoken of primary or first causes, and of second causes. But there are many other kinds of causes, such as instrumental causes, contributing causes, incidental causes, etc. 

Paul's view of predestination and divine sovereignty did not lead him into telling sinners that they could do nothing to be saved or to become a child of God and to become a vessel unto honor. He did not say to those who are lost in sin (and who appear to be vessels to dishonor as Pharaoh) that they could do nothing to become a vessel unto honor. That may seem like a contradiction but it was not so in Paul's mind. 

Notice in the above section from Romans chapter nine that Paul says that in the case of the vessels designed or made by Lord God the Potter unto dishonor was because he was "wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known" through them, much the same way he manifested his power through Pharaoh and made his name known in all the earth. On the other hand, God wanted to reveal something different about himself through the vessels made unto honor, which was that he "might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy." In either case God is revealing something about himself, things that might not be known any other way.

In the text Paul says that God "endures with much longsuffering" those who describes as "vessels of wrath." What is God's purpose in this longsuffering? Is it an act of mercy or common grace? 

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"?

Further, what can we learn from Paul's identifying the vessels unto honor with those who are believers in the Lord, saying "even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles"?

But as this chapter has grown long, we will address those questions in the next chapter when will continue to address Paul's doctrine of election and predestination in Romans chapter nine as a necessary step in showing how that doctrine does not make God unjust.