Introduction

In Romans 9-11 Paul takes up the Jewish problem. That is, he discusses the fact that though the Jews are a privileged people, to whom belong the covenants and promises, they stand in unbelief and under God's judgment. The problem is introduced in 9:1-5 as a matter that tugs at the apostles heart-the deeper their sin, the greater his concern and grief.

So the question arises: Has God failed to keep His word? This is acute given the facts of Romans 8 and the assurance we have there that God certainly fulfills all His promises and purposes. But does not Israel have a place in God's purposes? Then he gives a straightforward answer to the problem: God has always kept His word to Israel in terms of the true Israel within Israel. Thus in 9:6-13 Paul states that from the very beginning God has fulfilled His covenant to Abraham by a principle of sovereign election.

The answer is plain and to the point. God keeps His word. He decides which descendents of Abraham He will save and which He will not save. His decision is before anything good or bad is done and this fact is revealed to Rebecca and to us to show, to make it stand, that the fulfillment of God's saving purposes depend on God alone. There is no cooperation between God and man in salvation. The choice is God's and His alone.

Thus Paul's answer is that there is an Israel within Israel today according to God's sovereign choice. There is no other way to ultimately account for the difference between Israelites except to attribute it to sovereign election. But as such discussions go, an answer to one difficulty leads to more questions. Verse 14 begins a new branch off this tree: "What then shall we say? Is God unjust?

1A. The method of Paul's reply to the justice complaint

Confronted with a challenge on some point causes one to either soften the contested point or harden it. Softening would involve something like this: "Well, let me qualify what I mean, let me take the sharp edges and blunt them somewhat since it is easy to say too much." But Paul does not take the low road. Instead, he moves higher and asserts the original claim more definitively.

1) First, he gives a direct denial. Not at all!" (9:14b). The complaint of injustice is raised quite regularly and predictably to the doctrine of sovereign election. And Paul denies the implication of injustice in the sharpest terms: "May it never be," may it not be brought up as a possibility." The idea of injustice is so far afield that it should not even be entertained for a moment. "Perish the thought!"

We should keep this in close connection with the line of thought being developed. God keeps His word by accomplishing His purposes with sovereign resolve. God's election of some to life and His passing over of others are true in the most unqualified sense so that the complaint of injustice should not even be raised.

2) Second, he gives a forceful reiteration. It is forceful because he does not explain the relationship between faith and election; he does not explain human responsibility in relation to divine sovereignty. That is not to be found in this reply as we might expect.

What Paul does is reassert the doctrine of sovereign election in even stronger terms than the classic Jacob and Esau example. As he strengthens the point he brings it into sharper and clearer focus. Even at the risk of being misunderstood and sounding like God's sovereignty is unstructured arbitrariness and whim, he 'beefs up' the original claim.

This reiteration is so strong that it sounds circular. How does it answer the question of the justice of sovereign election to reply that election is sovereign, that is, very sovereign? This makes for some interesting comments. One writer thinks Paul's statements here are false (Dodd) and another thinks they are immoral (O'Neill, both cited by Moo).

3) Third, he gives a biblical defense (cf. Moo, 590-591). Does Paul try to justify God's righteousness at the bar of human logic? No. What he does in this reply is appeal to God's own word (he says, v. 15; Scripture says, v. 17—God speaking to Moses is recorded in Scripture and God's word through Moses to Pharaoh is cited as "Scripture says."). The ultimate standard by which to measure and judge the righteousness of God in sovereign election is God's own word recorded in the Bible. Method? Pointed directness, stronger reiteration, and biblical defense.

In summary of his method, Paul does not try to explain the ins and outs of the related doctrines such as divine sovereignty and human responsibility to show how these logically cohere. At this critical point in the debate, Paul does not bring up the relation of divine calling to faith and the necessary relation of faith to justification (as he does earlier in the book). The apostle does not find it necessary to go down these roads in order to show that God is just. He only needs to ground the doctrine in the strongest possible terms in Scripture. He had already appealed to Scripture to explain the Jewish problem by means of God's election clearly recorded with regard to Isaac and Jacob. Now when justice is raised to the biblical doctrine of election contained in these examples, Paul simply goes to Scripture again to raise the bar of clarity. This shows that when push comes to shove and we search for an ultimate answer we cannot appeal to reason or logic but final appeal must be to Scripture.

2A. The nuances of Paul's reply to the justice complaint

The question: "Is God unjust in choosing some to salvation and passing over others?" is answered by appeal to Scripture that asserts that God is sovereign in no uncertain terms. Paul then draws out the logical implications from these Scriptures (therefore, v. 16 and v. 18).

What distinct nuances emerge? How does Paul clarify sovereign election in such a way as to give a relevant reply to the justice objection while only appealing to Scripture and becoming even stronger in the assertion of sovereignty? He does so by citing how sovereign election is a matter of divine mercy and of divine glory. Let's consider each.

1B. Sovereign election is a matter of divine mercy (15-16)

What we have is a premise composed of Scripture (15) followed by a conclusion (16).

1C. Beginning with the premise, appeal is made to something God said to Moses when Moses requested to see the glory of the Lord. It is important to connect Paul's quote in context with God's name, Yahweh (Ex. 33:19, I will proclaim my name, Yahweh…I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy…). Revealing His name means to reveal His character. He is "I am" (Ex. 3:14). Therefore, He is the eternally self-existing and self-determining God in all His majesty, absolute independence, and freedom. He says of Himself, "I am" (Ex. 3:14). We call him Yahweh and thus say of Him that "He is" (Ex. 3:15).

Who He is, who Yahweh is, is focused in Exodus 33:19: He is Yahweh, One who is gracious to whom He will be gracious, showing compassion on whom He wills to show compassion. We need to connect Exodus 33:19 with Exodus 3:14. We then get this result: because He is self-determining and independent of everything outside of Himself, the bestowal of grace and compassion arises from within God and is not determined by outside influences. "Yahweh" accents His sovereignty, that He acts with unfettered freedom (Vos, Biblical Theology, 134).

2C. Paul then draws the obvious conclusion in Romans 9:16. Election to salvation does not depend on man but on God's mercy (a negative then a positive again).

Negatively stated, the ground or basis of God's choice is not what man desires. What man wants or wills is not a factor in God's choosing. The words "mercy" and "compassion" remind us of the human condition in sin. The Israelites are a fallen sinful people that stand in need of mercy and compassion. The phrase "on whom" gives us a "whosoever will" of a distinct kind. His bestowal of mercy is on whomsoever He will. Here is a "whosoever will" passage that reeks with good news. God determines who will receive mercy from among those who stand in need of mercy as condemned sinners.

He shows mercy and compassion sovereignly, covenant grace is sovereign grace (Ex. 6:7, I will take you as my own). Israel is unworthy (6:9, for example) but God will act. God did not ask them if they would let Him deliver them. Note there is no "may I be your God" or "if you please" but a simple "I will." If God chooses to show them mercy and compassion, they will be His people.

Paul clarifies at the same time that He reiterates from Scripture that God is not unjust in choosing to save whom He will. The clarification is that sovereign election is a sovereign bestowal of mercy and compassion that cannot involve injustice on God's part for two decisive reasons. a) Being who He is, Yahweh (He is and says of Himself, I am), demands that His actions be sovereign and independent of everything outside of Himself. This simply means that for God to remain consistent with Himself and thus to remain righteous He must act with free and independent sovereignty that is not dependent on man. Consider the issue of debt, for example. It would be unrighteous on God's part (inconsistent with His nature) if salvation depended on something man does, because in that case God would be debtor to man. As Scripture teaches no claim can be made on God that obligates Him to pay: Job 41:11, "Who has a claim against me that I must pay? Everything under heaven belongs to me." God is not a debtor to anyone. He is independent of all things He created and thus owns. He maintains His existence and purposes from eternity to eternity without any necessary reference to anything outside of Himself. b) Who man is, as sinner, shows that God is not unjust because justice does not apply to the salvation of sinners by divine election. If justice did apply as the governing principle then no sinner would be saved. God cannot be deemed unrighteous when the saving of elect sinners is not a matter of justice but of mercy. As Paul finalizes: it…depends…on God's mercy (v. 16). Choosing some to salvation and passing over others cannot be a matter of justice for if it were then none could be chosen to salvation.

At this point in the discussion, we are totally on the wrong turf to raise the question of God's righteousness. The question of God's righteousness actually only comes up when we ask how it is that God can show mercy to any undeserving sinners. Then we find our answer in the cross of Christ as the substitute who actually bore the sins of those for whom He died (Rom. 8:32; Heb. 9:12). The only way election could be unjust would be if the sins of the elect were not dealt with by Christ as an actual substitute who satisfied the claims of justice.

As a bottom line we can say that God is not being unfair to those He does not choose because they are undeserving. It is not a merit/justice situation. If it were a justice situation then none would receive mercy. If it were a merit situation, mercy would not enter the picture.

Negatively stated, since the bestowal of mercy depends solely on God, arising from His sovereign and free will, then nothing that a man chooses or does makes any contribution whatever to his salvation. The exercise of man's "free will" has nothing to do with the bestowal of mercy nor do our good works, which are but filthy rags before God. God only is free and He is the one who grants freedom to the enslaved sinner.

Positively stated, the saving discrimination between undeserving sinners is a matter of mercy that rests solely on the free choice of God to save whomsoever He will.

2B. Sovereign election is a matter of divine glory (9:17-18)

Now consider the second example defending the discrimination of God between men, the example of Pharaoh. This can be discussed via some questions.

1) First, in overview, what two things have to be at work here? One is that Paul defends sovereign election by defending its opposite, hardening. Election and reprobation go hand in hand. Election is God's choice to save particular sinners and reprobation is His choice to leave the rest to the just punishment of their sins. You cannot have one without the other. Election is the choosing of some and the passing over of others; reprobation or hardening is simply an amplification of what it means to pass over those who are not elect. The other thing at work here is that ultimate appeal is to the glory of God.

2) What is Paul's point? Paul's point is that sovereign election/reprobation is not unrighteous because it serves the highest end of righteousness, which is the glory of God. Paul quotes from Exodus 9:16. The context treats the issue of the hardening of Pharaoh's heart by the Lord (9:12, the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart and he would not listen). This citation of Scripture (Ex. 9:16) is therefore relevant to the conclusion Paul draws because the hardening of Pharaoh's heart is contextual to God's purpose stated in 9:16. Pharaoh was raised up to this place in history by God for an expressed purpose: to show His power and proclaim His name in all the earth. It is striking and remarkable that God displays His power and proclaims His name through a divine hardening of Pharaoh's heart.

3) What does it mean to for God to harden the heart? Hardening makes seeing, understanding and believing in God an absolute impossibility. In the fall we are blind. In our blindness we are deceived and blinded further still by Satan. But there is a blindness, a deadness and hardness of heart that is inflicted by God. Probably one of the clearest passages in this regard is John 12:37-40 (the reason they could not believe is because God blinded their eyes and deadened their hearts so they could not see, understand, or repent).

Hardening is an example of sovereign severity in judgment on sinners already on the path of sin and rebellion against the Lord. Pharaoh shows us this in stages. We are told that Pharaoh hardened his own heart; he was already unbelieving, sinful, and perishing. But to fulfill a specific purpose God intensified Pharaoh's self-hardening in the most absolute and final sense. God accelerated the hardening process making him harder still until his heart, arteries, and veins were all petrified into a solid mass of stone!

4) How can this be used to defend the righteousness of God in sovereign election since this is sovereign election in multiplied proportions (it sounds circular)?

The point then is that justice is not the first question here either in election/reprobation/ hardening. If justice were at issue then all would be hardened because all stand before God already unbelieving, sinful, and perishing.

Still some are hardened and some are not hardened. What explains this difference if justice does not fit into this universe of thought? To answer this question consider the illustration often used in this connection of the sun melting wax and hardening clay. We could think of justice as the sun beating down on clay. The clay is hardened. If the sun shines on wax, it will melt. If wax represents the submissive and pliable heart, no fallen sinner will be melted by God's justice. And since all of us are sinful clay, then we will all be hardened in the heat of the sun. The reason some are hardened but not all is because hardening is not primarily a matter of justice. If it were we would all bake into stone under the penetrating rays of God's righteousness. The hardening comes to those that God chooses to harden (Rom. 9:18). It is a matter of sovereign determination; thus it is a matter again of sovereign election that operates in a different field of reference from justice. If justice is not even in the ball park (else all would be hardened) then the question of injustice is totally afield and irrelevant!

The injustice complaint is an impossible one. Consider this argument. Would God be just if He left all people to perish in their sin? Of course He would since on all counts we are all guilty and worthy of eternal punishment. Then how can it be thought that God would be unjust if He left some people to perish in their sin? He cannot be faulted as unjust if He let all perish so it is impossible to fault Him for letting some perish (cf. circle and a slice: what pertains to the whole must pertain to the part, i.e., if all are sinners then some are).

So Paul has shown from Scripture as the ultimate standard that sovereign election cannot be cited to impugn the righteousness of God because of what Scripture says. It gives an example of hardening by God's choice to serve His purpose.

5) How does divine glory factor into the picture?

It shows us that God's election/reprobation/hardening conforms to the highest pattern of righteousness: His own glory (not only is justice totally out of the question, righteousness is totally in). Hardening is not an end in itself. Rather it serves a greater end, the display of God's glory. Hardening is subservient to the ultimate standard of righteousness, conformity to the glory of God.

An action that accords with Scripture and that glorifies God cannot be unjust. God's choice to save particular sinners and His purpose to harden other sinners serves that great end of all of creation. Therefore, it is impossible that it involve God in unrighteousness.

Is sovereign election unrighteous or unjust? No it cannot be because 1) Scripture teaches it (through Moses to Pharaoh); Scripture is the standard not human logic (still Paul reasons logically throughout this section, logic is not the ultimate standard but it is a secondary, God given, and necessary tool), 2) Sovereign election is a matter of sovereign mercy where the issue of justice does not pertain; if justice pertained then none would be saved; that some are saved is because of sovereign mercy, 3) Sovereign election is a matter of sovereign severity in which God hardens whom He wills to harden; it is on a different field from justice here as well for if justice pertained then all would be hardened, and finally 4) Sovereign election/hardening accords with the highest righteousness conceivable; it glorifies God, so it is impossible that it be faulted as unjust.

We must worship God as sovereign Lord and like Abraham fall on our faces before Him. There we must say: "Tis not that I did choose thee, for Lord that could not be; This heart would still refuse thee, Hadst thou not chosen me. Thou from the sin that stained me, Hast cleansed and set me free; Of old thou has ordained, That I should live to thee." And what do we hear? There at His feet we hear the sovereign Lord utter reassuring covenants and promises in our ears.

O worship the King! Say and sing to the risen Lord Jesus: "My Jesus as Thou wilt, all will be well for me" and "here I am secure in Your sovereign embrace knowing that Your purposes are being worked out over the ages of history and in my personal history." We must then get up to our feet to serve our sovereign God by loving leadership in our homes and faithful service in our tasks on earth. To the Lord Jesus be the glory forever, Amen!