"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: 10 - 13 nkjv)
We cited these words in the last chapter but did not say a lot about them directly. So, we will begin this chapter by giving further observations regarding them.
When Paul says "not only this" he means that there is another example of God's choice of persons to be God's "children of the promise," or children of Abraham, or the true seed of Abraham, or the true Israel, besides the case of Isaac and Ishmael, a case in which we have already said much. The new example of God's sovereign choice for such an end purpose is in the case of Jacob and his older twin brother Esau. This will be another case example where God chose a person and rejected another freely, without any consideration of their choices or their works.
We must also keep in mind that Paul is still addressing several objections or erroneous ideas. First, he is showing that God's promise of salvation to all who are of Abraham's seed and who are Israelites has not failed and the fact that some of the physical descendants of Abraham and Jacob are not saved does not prove that God's word of promise has failed or not been effectuated. Second, he is showing that those who are the true "children of the promise" or children of God are they whom God has chosen and predetermined to be such. Third, he is showing that this choice or "purpose of God according to election," was not based upon what the chosen did or did not do. Fourth, he is showing that God is not unjust, nor failed to do the right thing, by his choice of one and the rejection of another.
So, why did God choose Jacob rather than Esau? That is a question that Paul addresses. He addressed it in the case of Isaac being chosen and predestined to sonship instead of Ishmael. It was all of God's choosing and working, and of his love and mercy, and was not of Isaac's choosing and willing, nor of his works. Now Paul will address that same question in the case of God's choice of Jacob and his rejection of Esau. In the case of Isaac and Ishmael, one could argue that God chose Isaac because his mother was Sarah and that God rejected Ishmael because his mother was Hagar. But, one cannot make that same argument with the case of Jacob and Esau for they both had the same mother, which Paul emphasizes for this very reason. In the same way he argues that the twins not only had the same mother (Rebecca), but had the same father too, saying they were "conceived by one man." So, Paul's argument excludes differences in pedigree and lineage as the reason behind God's choice.
That Jacob and Esau did not do anything to be chosen or not chosen is evident from the words of Paul who said that God's election occurred before they were born, saying "for the children not yet being born." Some might argue that the choice, though taking place before Jacob and Esau were born, was nevertheless because God foresaw them and based his choice of Jacob and his rejection of Esau on the basis of foreseeing their choices and works. That idea is refuted however by Paul's adding the words "nor having done any good or evil." Those words are in line with his conclusionary words which said "so then it is not of him who wills nor of him who runs." Again, it is quite clear that Isaac had nothing to do with God choosing him and bringing about his miraculous birth of the Spirit.
Many Christians find it hard to believe that God chose Jacob and rejected Esau apart from any consideration of their choices and their works. They think it more fair and just for God to base his choice upon the choices and works of people. But again, even if we accept that premise, we must ask why Jacob was different, or better, than his brother Esau. As we have seen, Paul says that if one is different from another, it is because God has given him something that he did not give to another. Recall his words (which we have cited previously):
"For who makes you differ from another? And what do you have that you did not receive? Now if you did indeed receive it, why do you boast as if you had not received it?" (I Cor. 4: 7 nkjv)
The same is true with faith, as we before observed. If God's election of Jacob (or anyone else) is based upon God's foreknowledge of Jacob's faith, it is still a case where the election of Jacob was all of God for God is the giver of faith. (Eph. 2: 8-9; II Peter 1: 1; Phil. 1: 29; Acts 3: 16; John 6: 65) Recall too that John the Baptist said "no man can receive anything except it be given him from above." (John 3: 27) James said that "every good and perfect gift is from above," coming down from the Father. (James 1: 17) So Augustine well prays to God saying "Grant what Thou dost command, and command what Thou wilt." Isaiah also writes this testimony: "LORD, You will establish peace for us, For You have also done all our works in us." (Isa. 26: 12 nkjv)
If God gives faith, or any other gift, to a person, then obviously he chose to give it before he actually gave it. If a person has faith, God purposed to give it to that person before that person ever existed, yea, even before the foundation of the world. Did God first choose Jacob as a person and then, based upon that choice, chose to give him all the means of salvation? As we have before stated, many millions of people since the beginning of the world have never had the means of salvation, which is the gospel or word of God. Paul said that people cannot believe in the one true God or in Jesus unless they first hear about God and his Son Jesus, concluding that "faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God." (Rom. 10: 17) Anyone therefore who has been chosen to salvation by God before he or she was born would be certain, by God's will and working, be brought to hear the gospel and given all the necessary means of salvation. And, it is certain that God has the power to make it possible for everyone to hear the gospel. He could appear to everyone and personally teach it. He could send an angel to every human being. In fact this is what will actually happen in the time of the world's last generation before the second coming of Christ. John writes:
"Then I saw another angel flying in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach to those who dwell on the earth—to every nation, tribe, tongue, and people." (Rev. 14: 6 nkjv)
So, if God wanted to insure that every person heard the word and gospel of God and have opportunity thereby to become God's chosen and to be saved, he surely could make it happen. But, he has not made it happen and so many people have died without ever knowing about the one true God or in Jesus Christ.
So, did God choose Jacob because Jacob first chose God? Or, did Jacob come to faith because he was first chosen by God? The apostle John assures us that "we love him because he first loved us." (I John 4: 19 kjv) One cannot exclude choice to love in someone loving someone else, for love is a choice. So we may say that we believers "choose God because he first chose us." Or, we may say "we have faith because he first chose to give us faith."
Further, it could not be that God foresaw anyone on their own believing or producing their own faith. In God's foreknowledge or middle knowledge the Lord saw no one who sought after God, or chose to love and serve him, but rather saw all rejecting God. So we read:
"God looks down from heaven upon the children of men, To see if there are any who understand, who seek God. Every one of them has turned aside; They have together become corrupt; There is none who does good, No, not one." (Psa. 53: 2-3 nkjv; See also Rom. 3: 9-18)
The only way that God could foresee anyone coming to believe in Christ, or having any divine gift, is because it is a result of God predetermining to give that person faith.
God's choice of Isaac and Jacob, and of every believer, was not based upon merit, nor upon conditions performed by one's free will or works, as Paul asserts that it is "not of works but of him who calls" and that "it is not of him who wills or runs but of God who shows mercy." But, again, if it was based upon God's foreknowledge of someone's willing and doing, it is still all of God for no one wills to come to God and believe in him apart from God's working in him "to will and to do of his good pleasure." (Phil. 2: 13) So also agreed the psalmist, who said: "Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power." (110: 3 kjv) The psalmist also said: "Blessed is the man You choose, And cause to approach You." (65: 4 nkjv) God did not choose and bless any man because he first approached God in faith, but rather God first chose him and then drew him to himself before he believed.
Many of my brothers in Christ agree with unbelievers who view the doctrine of unconditional election as being unworthy of God and grossly unfair. I cannot help that, except to say "let every man be persuaded in his own mind." (Rom. 14: 5) I am just trying to be honest about what Paul seems to me to be what he is affirming and teaching in this chapter of Romans. Some of these brothers will deal with the cognitive dissonance that Paul's teaching on the doctrine of election produces in them by not only saying that God's choice of Jacob or anyone else is because he foresaw that they would choose God and believe in him but also by
1) saying that God is not dealing with the individual salvation of anyone in Romans chapter nine but a choice of who will be favored to be a means of giving birth to the Messiah, or being his ancestor, or
2) the "purpose of God according to election" is not an election to salvation but an election to becoming a divinely recognized physical seed of Abraham or to some temporal blessing.
These same brothers (often styled "Arminian" in contrast to those styled "Calvinist") say that "Jacob have I loved but Esau have I hated" means simply that God loved Esau less than Jacob.
In response to the first case we have several rebuttal points to make. To argue this way ignores the context. As we have seen, Paul is chiefly replying to the accusation that says Paul's assertion that not all the physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob will be saved makes God's word of promise to have failed of accomplishment. In defending his assertion he says that the reason why the accusation is false is because God never defined "children of the promise," "children of Abraham," "seed of Abraham," "children of God," or "Israelites," as denoting those who are the physical descendants of those patriarchs. To be such absolutely has to do with salvation. This is one clear argument against the idea that the choice of God is not a choice to salvation. He begins this chapter by saying he mourns over the fact that the majority of his Jewish brothers are not saved. So, salvation is the central idea of the whole chapter. He is replying then to the question "who then is saved?" Or, "who is the true seed of Abraham, or the true Israel who shall be saved?" Or, "who among the physical descendants of Abraham and Jacob are saved and why?"
Second, the context further shows that individual election to salvation is the subject, and not a mere election to being a physical Jew or part of the lineage of the Messiah, because it speaks of those who are either loved or hated by God (vs. 13), and of those who are shown mercy and compassion (as opposed to being hardened in heart and a God rejecter as Pharaoh; vss. 15 & 18), and of those who God has "called" to him (vs. 24), called (named or designated as) "my people," "beloved," "called sons of the living God" (vss. 25-26) and of those who are "the children of God" (vs. 8), and those who have been chosen to become "vessels of mercy afore prepared unto glory" or "unto honor," (vss. 21-23). Consider also that those in the new testament who are commonly called "God's elect" are they who are "chosen to salvation" (II Thess. 2: 13), and so being elected in Romans chapter nine is also a choice to salvation and not to being a mere human link in the ancestry of Christ.
As we have previously shown, Paul lists the various good things that God chose to give to Israel to the exclusion of other peoples. That included "the adoption" or placement as sons, and "the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises," and yes the blessing of being the people who would give birth to Christ ("of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came"), and it is very hard to see how these things have nothing to do with salvation.
But, even if we grant, for the sake of argument, that the choice of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob was not a choice to salvation, but to some temporal blessing, it still does not relieve my Arminian brothers of the difficulty they seek to escape. The same is true in their saying that "hate" means "love less." God is still showing favoritism (or we might better say is favoring one rather than, or more than, another) and many will think God is still not being fair. You still must explain to others, such as infidels and bible critics, how choosing to love one person more than another is just and right.
Further, if you admit that the temporal blessings of being a physical Jew was what God chose to give to Isaac and Jacob, it was still a choice that was unmerited, neither doing anything to become God's chosen. You must also ask why Paul is calling attention to the fact that Isaac was chosen and favored over Ishmael, and Jacob over Esau, in the context of Romans chapter nine. If God can choose a person to temporal blessings unconditionally, why can't he do the same with eternal blessings? In the case of God's choice of Jacob there was the added blessing that says "the elder (Esau) shall serve the younger (Jacob)." So, how would my Arminian brothers defend the justness of this to critics of God's justice? How will they answer those who think this is not right for God to do because he seems to be choosing for no reason, electing Jacob and rejecting Esau arbitrarily or randomly. How will they answer those who say that if God chooses to do good to one person and not to another apart from any qualifications or merit in the ones chosen then he is being partial, being a "respecter of persons," or discriminating?
The main thrust of Paul's argumentation is that it is God's choice and purpose that determines whether a person becomes a child of God. One of the reasons why "it is not of him who wills or runs" is so that it may be only "of God who shows mercy." God's election is his having mercy on whom he chooses to have mercy and not having mercy on those he chooses not to have mercy. It is also this way so that no man can take credit for being saved, nor have any basis for boasting, but where only God can receive the praise.
No comments:
Post a Comment