In this series so far, we’ve covered the following passages that directly relate to TULIP: Ephesians 1:3-6 (U), I Thessalonians 5:23-24(P), Jude 1:24 (P), John 10:26-30 (U, I, P), I Peter 1:4-5 (P), Acts 13:48 (U, I), John 6:44-45 (T, U, I, P), Romans 3:9-12 (T), and I Corinthians 2:14 (T). Here we continue with another passage.
The Text
Romans 9:10-24 – “Not only that, but when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our ancestor Isaac – even before they were born or had done anything good or bad (so that God’s purpose in election would stand, not by works but by his calling) – it was said to her, “The older will serve the younger,” just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” What shall we say then? Is there injustice with God? Absolutely not! 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 does not depend on human desire or exertion but on God who shows mercy. For the scripture says to Pharaoh: “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may demonstrate my power in you, and that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth.” So then, God has mercy on whom he chooses to have mercy, and he hardens whom he chooses to harden. You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who has ever resisted his will?” But who indeed are you – a mere human being – to talk back to God? Does what is molded say to the molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right to make from the same lump of clay one vessel for special use and another for ordinary use? But what if God, willing to demonstrate his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience the objects of wrath prepared for destruction?And what if he is willing to make known the wealth of his glory on the objects of mercy that he has prepared beforehand for glory – even us, whom he has called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?” – Paul (NET Bible)
Relevance
The significance of this text in relation to the Doctrines of Grace is that this passage shows the gracious election of God demonstrated to one individual and not the other. The text clearly shows that this is not on the basis of what God forsaw, but rather on the basis of God’s will. He made the choice, and he made it before they were born or did anything good or bad. It could not have been contingent on what God forsaw into the future because God would have just forseen a bunch of sin. And besides, the text explicitly says it did not depend on “human desire or exertion”. The clay, a mere human being, has no right to accuse the potter of being unfair. This very directly relates to the U in TULIP.
Historical Comments On It
- “He now begins to ascend higher, even to show the cause of this difference, which he teaches us is nowhere else to be found except in the election of God….the grace of God was not effectual in them all; and hence that they, who enjoy the favor of God, are the children of the promise. But how it thus happened, he has been either silent or has obscurely hinted. Now indeed he openly ascribes the whole cause to the election of God, and that gratuitous, and in no way depending on men; so that in the salvation of the godly nothing higher….must be sought than the goodness of God, and nothing higher in the perdition of the reprobate than his just severity….he shows, that God in making a difference could not have had any regard to works, for they were not yet done. Now they who argue on the other side, and say, that this is no reason why the election of God should not make a difference between men according to the merits of works, for God foresees who those are who by future works would be worthy or unworthy of his grace, are not more clear-sighted than Paul, but stumble at a principle in theology, which ought to be well known to all Christians, namely, that God can see nothing in the corrupt nature of man, such as was in Esau and Jacob, to induce him to manifest his favor. When therefore he says, that neither of them had then done any good or evil, what he took as granted must also be added, — that they were both the children of Adam, by nature sinful, and endued with no particle of righteousness….Since the purpose of God according to election is established in this way, — that before the brothers were born, and had done either good or evil, one was rejected and the other chosen; it hence follows, that when any one ascribes the cause of the difference to their works, he thereby subverts the purpose of God. Now, by adding, not through works, but through him who calls, he means, not on account of works, but of the calling only; for he wishes to exclude works altogether. We have then the whole stability of our election inclosed in the purpose of God alone: here merits avail nothing, as they issue in nothing but death; no worthiness is regarded, for there is none; but the goodness of God reigns alone. False then is the dogma, and contrary to God’s word, — that God elects or rejects, as he foresees each to be worthy or unworthy of his favor.” – John Calvin (1509-1564)
- “The apostle, having asserted the true meaning of the promise, comes here to maintain and prove the absolute sovereignty of God, in disposing of the children of men, with reference to their eternal state. And herein God is to be considered, not as a rector and governor, distributing rewards and punishments according to his revealed laws and covenants, but as an owner and benefactor, giving to the children of men such grace and favour as he has determined in and by his secret and eternal will and counsel….If God, in dealing with the children of men, do thus, in an arbitrary manner, choose some and refuse others, may it not be suspected that there is unrighteousness with him? This the apostle startles at the thought of: God forbid! Far be it from us to think such a thing; shall not the judge of all the earth do right?…..All God’s reasons of mercy are taken from within himself. All the children of men being plunged alike into a state of sin and misery, equally under guilt and wrath, God, in a way of sovereignty, picks out some from this fallen apostatized race, to be vessels of grace and glory. He dispenses his gifts to whom he will, without giving us any reason: according to his own good pleasure he pitches upon some to be monuments of mercy and grace, preventing grace, effectual grace, while he passes by others. The expression is very emphatic, and the repetition makes it more so: I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy. It imports a perfect absoluteness in God’s will; he will do what he will, and giveth not account of any of his matters, nor is it fit he should…..Whatever good comes from God to man, the glory of it is not to be ascribed to the most generous desire, nor to the most industrious endeavour, of man, but only and purely to the free grace and mercy of God…..Wherein the holy happy people of God differ from other people, it is God and his grace that make them differ. Applying this general rule to the particular case that Paul has before him, the reason why the unworthy, undeserving, ill-deserving Gentiles are called, and grafted into the church, while the greatest part of the Jews are left to perish in unbelief, is not because those Gentiles were better deserving or better disposed for such a favour, but because of God’s free grace that made that difference. The Gentiles did neither will it, nor run for it, for they sat in darkness ” – Matthew Henry (1662-1714)
- “Jacob and Esau were under all considerations upon an equal foot, were just in the same situation and condition, when the one was loved and the other hated; or in other words, when the one was chosen, and the other rejected; they were neither of them as yet born, and had they been born, their birth and parentage could have been no reason why one was chose and the other not, because in both the same; nor had the one performed a good action, or the other an evil one; so that Jacob was not loved for his good works, nor Esau hated for his evil ones; which confirms the truth of this doctrine, that the objects of predestination, whether to life or death, are alike, are in the same situation and condition: whether they are considered in the corrupt mass, or as fallen, they are all equally such, so that there could not be any reason in them, why some should be chosen and others left; or whether in the pure mass, antecedent to the fall, and without any consideration of it, which is clearly signified in this passage, there could be nothing in the one, which was not in the other, that could be the cause of such a difference made: so that it follows, that works neither good nor evil are the causes moving God to predestinate, whether to life or death; good works are not the cause of election to eternal life, for not only, this act of distinguishing grace, passed before any were done, but also these are fruits, effects, and consequence of it, and so cannot be the causes thereof….the decree of God, which is entirely free, and depends upon his own will and choice, stands firm and immutable, and is not to be disannulled by earth or hell, for it stands not on the precarious foot of works….God is not unrighteous in his nature; nor in any of his ways and works; nor in this, in choosing some and rejecting others. There is no unrighteousness with God in that part of predestination, commonly called election; for this is neither an act of justice, nor injustice; not of justice, but of grace and mercy…[it]…is what God was not obliged to do; wherefore to choose some and not others, is no act of injustice; for injustice is a violation of justice, which has no place in this affair: if it is an act of injustice, it must be either to them that are chosen, or to them that are not; not to them that are chosen, to them it is an act of favour and good will, they are chosen to grace and glory, to holiness here, and happiness hereafter; not to them that are passed by, because they had no right nor claim to the grace and glory ” – John Gill (1697 -1771)
- “…[quotes 'Or had done anything good or bad']…The reason for introducing these words is stated in the next clause. It was to show that the basis of choice was not in them but in God; and this is the main point about the doctrine of election, whether the choice relates to privileges of the external theocracy or to the spiritual and eternal blessings of the kingdom of Christ.” -Charles Hodge (1797-1878)
- “Romans 9 is therefore not an abstract discussion of predestination, but a concrete argument answering a concrete and practical question…..Throughout the ages, God has always maintained the prerogative of election…..Even among national Israel, God has exercised his right to elect one and reject another even before their birth…God is completely free in showing mercy (vv. 14-21), and if he were merely to be just, no one would be chosen (vv. 22-23)” – Michael Horton (1964-Present)
- “The manifold attempts to get around this passage….Suffice it to say that the attempt to turn this passage into a mere commentary on national privilege completely and utterly misses the point of Romans 9:5-6 and the intensely personal application of 9:10-24. In verse 16 the application is personal and singular, not national. When the passage is allowed to speak for itself, it speaks of unconditional election in the plainest of terms. It is God’s mercy, not man’s will or effort that determines the outcome of salvation.” – James White (1962-Present)