Israel’s Rejection and God’s Purpose
“But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but ‘Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.’ This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. For this is what the promise said: ‘About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.’ And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac” (Rom. 9:6-10, ESV).
In view of the divine promises and spiritual blessings reserved for Abraham’s heritage, the emblematic phrases “children of Abraham” and “children of God” are practically interchangeable (cf. 4:9-18; 8:14-21; Gal. 3:26-29). Abraham had many more biological children and branches of descendants than just those through Isaac and Jacob (Gen. 25:1-6; 36:1-9; 1 Chron. 1:32-33). But his spiritual “children” are those who exemplify the same kind of trusting reliance on God as he did, irrespective of physical ancestry or circumcision (4:9-12, 16). The phrase “our forefather Isaac,” though seemingly excluding Gentiles, is clearly shown by the context to be inclusive of all of Paul’s Christian readers, whether of Jewish or non-Jewish descent. This is further attested by the next use of the first person plural: “us, whom he also called, not only from Jews but also from Gentiles” (v. 24).
The argument continues: “though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls—she was told, ‘The older will serve the younger’” (Rom. 9:11-12).
Contrary to what has become a popular and widespread interpretation of Romans 9, this section of the letter does not teach the Calvinistic doctrine of unconditional election. The sovereignty of God is not disputed and is readily acknowledged and accepted on both sides of the debate.1 Nevertheless, this passage is about the overall “purpose of God” (v. 11; cf. 8:28-30) in implementing his redemptive scheme through Christ (v. 5) and is not addressing the Calvinistic notion of specific persons whom the Lord has allegedly elected to save or not save. Otherwise, why would Paul fervently pray for the salvation of souls (10:1) if they were categorically predestined to be lost? It is important to pay attention to both what is said and what is not said in this chapter. Paul never claims that any human was created for the purpose of unconditional reprobation and condemnation.
Contextually the apostle is confronting the wayward attitudes and misconceptions of ethnocentric Jews who were discounting Gentiles from the Lord’s circle of acceptance (vv. 6-8, 24 ff.). This chapter, only a portion of the discussion, serves to vindicate God’s judgment against the obsolete system of exclusive Judaism. The scriptures which religious Jews hold in high regard are abundantly cited in this discourse to confirm the legitimacy of what Paul is saying.
Israel’s Rejection and God’s Justice
“As it is written, ‘Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.’ What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means!” (Rom. 9:13-14).2
Some would argue that if God chooses certain ones and rejects others (even among Abraham’s descendants), this would seem unjust, and since God is not unjust, Paul’s reasoning must be flawed. In response, the apostle notes that particular individuals (e.g., Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Pharaoh) were divinely chosen—while others (e.g., Ishmael, Esau) were not—to play an important role in God’s plan based on his sovereign will. Calvinists claim the focus of this chapter is on individual salvation and individual condemnation, but the texts quoted in vv. 12-13 (Gen. 25:23b; Mal. 1:2-3) are not about Jacob and Esau as individuals but are corporate views of their respective descendants: “Two nations … two peoples” (Gen. 25:23a); “Israel … Edom” (Mal. 1:1-4).
The quote from Malachi 1:2-3, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated,” loses some of its meaning in English translation. The English term “hate” may seem a bit harsh, but the Greek μισέω magnifies the sense of “esteem less” with respect to the absolute importance of one’s priorities (cf. Luke 14:26). Moreover, “love” and “hate” are not emotional expressions (as per modern westernized concepts) but are demonstrated actions (cf. Dan. 9:4; John 14:15; Rom. 5:8). In the fifth-century BC context of Malachi, “Jacob” represents the descendants of Jacob/Israel (1:1, 5) and “Esau” stands for Esau’s descendants, the people of Edom (1:4). The Israelites were being reminded of their special role in God’s plan (“Jacob I have loved” – blessed and provided for), despite the persistent abuse of their privileged status, while the defiant and wicked Edomites were destined for destruction (“Esau I have hated” – punished and condemned).
After expressing his remorse over the spiritual condition of fleshly Israel alienated from Christ, Paul acknowledges that Abraham’s biological descendants (through Isaac and Jacob) were selected by God to be instrumental in bringing the Messiah into the world (vv. 1-5). But the divine purpose goes far beyond the physical. Merely having a hereditary link with Abraham is not sufficient for being right with God, therefore Israel’s current spiritual condition cannot legitimately be blamed on God as though he were unjust (v. 14).
“For he says to Moses, ‘I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.’ So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, ‘For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.’ So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills” (Rom. 9:15-18, ESV).
In stark contrast to human reasoning and preferences and innovations, God’s purpose is rooted in his omniscience, foreknowledge, and infinite wisdom. In v. 15 Paul quotes (from “Moses”)3 the Lord’s statement in Exodus 33:19, in sparing a sinful nation (note chap. 32): “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy …” Yet the extending of divine mercy is not indiscriminate or arbitrary. Allowing the Bible to interpret itself, we read in Isaiah 55:7, “Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; Let him return to the Lord, and he will have mercy on him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.” Proverbs 28:13 says, “He who covers his sins will not prosper, but whoever confesses and forsakes them will have mercy” (see also Ex. 20:6; Psa. 119:132; Luke 1:50).
In v. 16 Paul observes, “So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.” The word “exertion” is lit. “running” [τρέχοντος], a frequently used metaphor in Paul’s writings.4 This has nothing to do with someone who might desire to be saved but is disallowed, or one who is incapable of seeking salvation; it is all about the unfolding of God’s purpose (v. 11). Irrespective of Sarah’s ploy involving Hagar (Gen. 16:2), and Abraham’s initial choice of Ishmael (Gen. 17:18), and Isaac’s preference for Esau (Gen. 25:28), human ingenuity and fallibility neither determine nor improve nor thwart the divine scheme. It is not that God has no justifiable reason for extending mercy. Even if his finite creatures were capable of understanding his infinite ways, the Creator is not obligated to fully explain himself to those who, in fact, are incapable of full comprehension.
Accordingly, in v. 17 Paul quotes words spoken to Pharaoh in Exodus 9:16, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” What is the point? “So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills” (v. 18). God has chosen to have mercy on those who humbly submit to his will (like Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses) and hardens those who defiantly reject his will (like Pharaoh).
God hardened Pharaoh’s heart (Ex. 4:21; 7:3; 9:12; 10:1, 20, 27; 11:10; 14:4, 8, 17), not by subverting Pharaoh’s free will but by simply making demands that Pharaoh did not like. At the same time, Pharaoh hardened his own heart (Ex. 8:15, 19, 32; 9:34-35; 10:3; 13:15) because of his own stubborn pride and rebellion. God’s actions and demands in Egypt softened the hearts of many (Ex. 4:30-31; 9:20; 10:7) but hardened the heart of Pharaoh because of the brazen opposition of Pharaoh’s obstinate will. Moses and Pharaoh (like Jacob and Esau) serve as examples of two categories of persons with whom God has to deal (cf. 2:4-11; 6:16, 19; 8:5-8).
--Kevin L. Moore
Endnotes:
1 See 1 Chron. 29:11-12; 2 Chron. 20:6; Isa. 46:9-10; Dan. 4:35; Psa. 115:3; 1 Tim. 6:15.
2 On the rhetorical question, “What shall we say?” and “By no means!” response, see also v. 30; 3:4-6; 6:1-2.
3 Cf. Rom. 5:14; 10:5, 19; 1 Cor. 9:9; 10:2; 2 Cor. 3:7, 13, 15; 2 Tim. 3:8.
4 1 Cor. 9:24-26; Phil. 2:16; Gal. 2:2; 5:7.
Related Posts: Rom. 9:1-5, Rom 9:19-32
No comments:
Post a Comment