Romans 9
For the assurance and comfort of the saints in Christ, the apostle continues his teaching on predestination and divine election (8:28-9:23, 11:5-7). See also John 3:1-10, 6:44 f., 8:43-47, 10:24-30, 12:37-41, 17:2, 9, 12; Acts 13:48; 1 Cor.1:22-31; Eph.1:3-2:10; 1 Thess.5:9; 2 Thess.2:10-13; 2 Tim.1:9; James 1:18; 1 Peter 1:1-5, 2:8-9; Jude 4; and many other passages in both OT and NT. Anyone who can say “God saves sinners,” or “Jesus is Lord,” believes in predestination, if he believes what he has said. Man is responsible for his sin. The sovereign grace of God alone secures the salvation of any.
But Romans 9 goes further, into a place where far too many refuse to go. For God is not only sovereign in salvation, but in all things. God is sovereign in reprobation. If it is not he, then who is it? Reprobation is the necessary counterpart of the doctrine of election.
9:1-5. What about Israel according to the flesh, to whom so many advantages were given (4-5)? Their entire history as a nation demonstrates the failure of the will of man indwelt with the corruption of sin to choose life. So full of sorrow is Paul for his brethren in the flesh, that like Moses, he would take God’s wrath due them upon himself if he could (3; cf. Ex.32:32).
9:6-13. Did God not keep his promises to Israel? Did his word fail? No, but the promise never was given to all the children born of Israel, or all from Abraham (6-9; cf.2:28 f.; John 8:39-44). So far was the promise from being based on the works or will of man (John 1:11-13), that God chose one twin over another before they were even born, even choosing the younger over the older (cf. 1 Cor.15:46; Gal.5:17). God’s choice of Jacob necessarily involved his rejection of Esau. This was more than a mere passing over of Esau, but a deliberate and active rejection (13; see notes introducing Obadiah).
It is true that the word hate in Scripture often does not carry the malice the English word does, as when Jacob is said to have hated Leah. This is preceded by the verse that says that Jacob “loved Rachel more than Leah.” (Gen.29:30-31; cf. “hate your parents,” Luke 14:26). Nevertheless, the Lord truly hates sin, and it was the sovereign choice of God to preordain that the carnal Esau remain in his sin, which he alone is responsible for, and be rejected for it.
9:14-18. Paul knows how his argument will be received. “That’s so unfair!” But there is no injustice in mercy. Mercy is an unmerited gift, a matter of sovereign grace, not injustice (14-16).
But does God actually appoint the disobedient to their doom (1 Peter 2:9)? Was it God’s desire to harden Pharaoh’s heart (18)? God had already said to Moses, “but I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go” (Ex.4:21). Well! Poor old Pharaoh wasn’t allowed any choice in the matter at all — except to do whatever he freely chose to do. If Israel had been allowed such freedom, they would have chosen to remain in Egypt as slaves. But God raised up a reprobate man to the heights of power, and then brought him down, to demonstrate his power. This was to the glory of his justice. He brought an unwilling people out of slavery to demonstrate his mercy and compassion. He made them a willing people by using the scourge of Pharaoh’s army. He brought them out with a mighty hand to the glory of his grace. “So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires” (18; cf.11:7; 1 Thess.5:9).
9:19-29. Go ahead, admit it. When you read v.18, you did say v.19. The Holy Spirit knew you would! The natural man hates the sovereignty of God. We all know intuitively that at each fork in the road, the choice is ours. Yet there is always a motive, an influence which moves the will to choose as it does. Like Peter, we are offended by the Lord’s word that we are unable to choose the right because of our moral inability. (“Before the cock crows you will deny me three times.”) Jesus knew Peter’s ability better than Peter. Is it even conceivable that Peter might not have denied his Lord? If so, then the cross was unnecessary. It was Jesus who had the ability not to sin. Peter was made of the same lump of clay as Judas (21), and Jesus chose both of them for their own preordained purposes (Luke 22:22; John 15:16). Yet both acted out of their own free will, and were responsible before God. One was destined for honor, the other to dishonor (21, margin).
If salvation depends on man’s choice, then it is God who becomes unable. He is hostage to our whims. Such freedom takes away God’s freedom. The cross becomes for God a fool’s gamble which could in fact never save anyone. It must be God’s choice that stands and determines whether a man is saved or prepared for destruction (22).
Arminianism rests on man’s ability to choose salvation (i.e., logically, able to keep the Law) before God gives him a new heart (but cf. Ps.27:8; Heb.12:2a). Secular man takes this to its logical conclusion. If God surrenders his sovereignty to the creature’s undetermined choices, then God has been replaced by chance. Thus chance becomes the creator (evolution) and determiner (so to speak) of all things, and man once more loses his freedom. His thoughts and choices are mere biochemical accidents, and wisdom, morality, and responsibility are an illusion.
Our questioning of God’s determination of things is not only foolish, but impertinent (20). But thanks be to God for his gracious and irresistible call, which goes forth in grace to Jew and Gentile alike without distinction (23-24; 2:11).
9:27-29. God has not utterly rejected his people. His word has not failed (6), for he has saved the faithful remnant (27), and left them a seed just as he had promised.
9:30-33. Salvation is by faith alone in what God has chosen to do by Christ alone. To God alone be the glory. Those who by his grace alone believe in him will not be put to shame (33, margin). But the summary is, that faith in Christ alone for righteousness, while received gladly by Gentiles, had proven to be a stumbling stone and a rock of offense to most of the Jews.