What is interesting about the apostle’s clarification is that he does not say, “What shall separate us from the love of Christ,” but he says, “Who shall separate us,” indicating that the tribulation, distress, persecution, famine, nakedness, and sword are not things that Christians will endure, but persons. And the language that the apostle uses is not arbitrary, but he is referencing what he had written elsewhere. Earlier in the epistle, the apostle writes, “For those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury; there will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek” (vv. 2:8,9). Taking this tribulation and distress defined by Paul earlier in the letter and applying it to those whom Christians must endure, is then the apostle saying that these who incur tribulation and distress from God, namely the unrighteous, are not only unable to separate us from the love of Christ but are also in some way working to the good of the saints? In other words, is Paul saying that the damned in their damnation are working to the good of those who love God?

Though this indeed is a difficult thought, I believe that this is precisely what the apostle is saying. For in his discourse that follows this in Romans 9 on the freedom of God’s mercy and wrath, he writes:

So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. You will say to then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who are you , O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy which has prepared beforehand for glory? (vv. 9:18-23).

What we see is this section of the apostle’s discourse are two groups of people, with one group serving as a demonstration to another group. The first group are those who are prepared for wrath and destruction, and the second group are those who are prepared for mercy and glory. The first group exists for the sake of the second group, namely to demonstrate the wrath and power of God for the purpose of elucidating the glory and mercy of God to the second group. In other words, those who are damned to destruction exist to make known the wrath and power of God so as, by contrast, to magnify the mercy and glory of God to those who were chosen to receive mercy.

Therefore, when the apostle writes, “All things work together for the good of those who love God,” he emphatically means all things, for even the most terrible thing that we as humans can imagine, namely the eternal torment of a soul apart from God, works to the good of the saints of God in that it demonstrates to them his glory and mercy in glory.

This indeed is a hard teaching, and it inevitably evokes one of two responses. The first is a man-centered response that declares, “The God I serve would not act in this way.” It is a rebellious response that leans upon human understanding and rails against the clear declarations of God. It is a response based upon the philosophies of men rather than upon the wisdom of God, and many who profess that the Scriptures are the very Word of God deny this teaching. These stand haughtily against the notion that “[Salvation] depends not on human will or exertion, but on God who has mercy” (v. 9:16), and defy the question, “Who are you, O man, to answer back to God?” (v. 9:20). They instead see themselves fit to put God in the dock and to question the justice of their very Molder.

The second response is a God-centered response that declares, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You [alone] have the words of eternal life” (Jn. 6:68). It is a response that is rooted in godly humility and that recognizes that man is a creature and God is the Creator. It is a response that understands the damnable state of all men, and deeply loves that God has given mercy where none was merited. It is these who know the depths of the grace of God, and it is these who therefore adore Christ and his work the most. For mercy that is free is a glorious mercy, and its receipt is a call to the Gates of Praise (cf. Is. 60.18).

Taken in its context, we who are Gentiles who have believed upon Christ have all the more reason to glorify God for his mercy. For God in his sovereignty and freedom could have chosen to give mercy to Israel alone, yet:

Those who were not my people I will call “my people,”
….and her who was not beloved I will call “beloved.”
And in the very place where it was said to them, “You are not my people,”
….there they will be called “sons of the living God” (vv. 9:25,26).

And as such, this doctrine exists, not for Gospel apathy or for boasting in doctrinal understanding (for which many have used this doctrine), but for worship of the God of grace. For God in his infinite wisdom has chosen to make known the greatness of his mercy to his children by pouring out his wrath on others.

Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!

“For who has known the mind of the Lord,
….or who has been his counselor?”
Or who has given a gift to him
….that he might be repaid?”

For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen (Rm. 11:33-36).

]]> http://faithforfaith.org/2009/10/11/how-the-damnation-of-the-unrighteous-works-to-the-good-of-the-saints/feed/ 2 http://faithforfaith.org/2009/05/29/a-partial-hardening-has-come-upon-israel-ii-for-your-sake-the-jews-are-gods-enemies/ http://faithforfaith.org/2009/05/29/a-partial-hardening-has-come-upon-israel-ii-for-your-sake-the-jews-are-gods-enemies/#comments Fri, 29 May 2009 11:12:31 +0000 D. Matthew Brown http://faithforfaith.org/?p=2122 ]]>

As regards the gospel, they are enemies of God for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. For just as you were at one time disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience, so they too have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may now receive mercy. For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all (Rm. 11:28-32).

[Warning: Post is at present unedited] This passage of Scripture is perhaps one of the most difficult passages in Romans, perhaps in all of Scripture, to grasp. It is so because of the language that is used in it– language that is complicated by our natural tendency to assign strict definitions to words that do not in themselves demand strict definitions. In this particular passage, the word of which I am speaking is the word that is translated “election” in v. 11:28, which I shall deal with in short order.

First, as always, we must understand the context in which this passage is spoken. As has been so throughout Romans 11, Paul is speaking of two groups of people–the Jews and the Gentiles. And because of God’s good wisdom and pleasure, he has decreed that salvation would only come to Gentiles if the Jews on the whole (less the remnant) would reject the Messiah. This purpose of the Lord is summed up in the apostle’s final statement in Romans 11 concerning the matter, viz. “For God has consigned all [both Jews and Gentiles] to disobedience so that he may have mercy on all.” This is a reiteration of what the apostle has declared earlier in the epistle, viz. “What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin” (Rm. 3:9). For what reason? “So that every mouth may be stopped and the whole world may be held accountable to God” (v. 3:19). Therefore, just as the law has stopped the mouths of the whole world (for they have no justification in themselves), so too this section is designed to stop our self-righteous mouths and declare what the apostle declares at the conclusion of this treatise: “Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! etc.” (vv. 11:33-36).

Now, what we must understand as Gentiles in this mystery is this: that the Jews in respect to the Gospel are the enemies of God for our sake, but as regards election they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers (cf. v. 11:28). This passage is somewhat difficult on the surface, because, as said before, we wish to apply definitions that we have given to particular words in other passages to different passages where such definitions do not work. In this particular instance, we take the “election” of Rm. 9:11 which is, in that context, regarding particular persons, and apply that “personalized” definition to the corporate election spoken of in v. 11:28. What we should do however is understand that “election” in its most basic of definitions is the sovereign choice or decree of God, not necessarily the choosing of particular persons from the foundation of the world unto salvation (which is indeed true in several instances). Understanding this, we can attempt to grasp the mystery the apostle is speaking of in this passage.

The reason that we must understand election this way is first because the context demands it and second because we would have a terrible contradiction on our hands if we did not. For in the same breath the apostle declares that the Jews are the enemies of God on the one hand and are beloved for the sake of their forefathers on the other. Now, if this “belovement” was salvific in nature, the Gospel would be void and Paul’s deep concern in Rm. 9:1-5 for his brothers according to the flesh would be empty. However, we must understand as Paul declares earlier in this chapter, that there will be many of the Jews who are not “elect” and will by their unbelief and lawless deeds bend their backs forever (cf. vv. 11:7-10).

Therefore, this election of the Jews for the sake of their forefathers is the same of which the apostle has already spoken in the chapter, which he declares in his self-answered question: “Did [the Jews] stumble in order that they might fall? By no means!” (v. 11:11a). In other words, Israel’s disbelief has not come so that they might be rejected forever corporately but so that “through their trespass salvation [would] come to the Gentiles” (v. 11:11b). Therefore, it can be said that on the one hand that the Jews on a whole are presently the enemies of God with regards to the Gospel and their personal salvation, but with regard to the promise made to their forefathers and God’s sovereign plan, they are corporately beloved. In other words, as the apostle clearly declares throughout the chapter, God is not finished with corporate Israel (i.e. the descendents of Abraham according to the flesh) but has decreed that one day they, by the grace of God, will come to the Jesus Christ for salvation.

What we must gather from this passage as Gentiles is not some eschatological truth (for it is not clear from this passage that this future belief of the Jews is eschatological in nature), but it is that salvation is from the Lord. Romans 9-11 exists chiefly to remind us of this truth and for us to be humbled by it. For if it were not for God’s good pleasure, we as Gentiles would have continued in our disbelief (cf. v. 9:30) and the Jews who are now unbelieving would never come to repentance. But God, being rich in mercy has consigned the whole world to disobedience so that he might have mercy on all, both Jews and Greeks. We who are in Christ are mere vessels of God’s grace and mercy given for his glory and for his glory alone. For “from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen” (v. 11:36).

This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth (1Tim. 2:3, 4).

As promised, I am continuing my survey of texts that supposedly contradict the doctrines taught in Romans 8-11, et al. Several weeks ago, we dealt with the texts of John 3:16 and 2 Peter 3:9 and how those classic texts supposedly portray God as a God who is, respectively, desperately in love with the world and is wringing his hands at the thought that any person on this planet should have to perish. We demonstrated through these texts’ context and through biblical theology that this is not the God that is portrayed in these verses, but instead we find a God who is quite the opposite.

Despite this clarity in context, we must realize that we live in a reader response society and among Christians who use the Bible as a reference book rather than the meat upon which they feast daily. Thus we find not Christians who read the Scriptures through and thoroughly in its own context, but we find Christians who google, “Why Calvinism is evil,” and find a website of some other person who also only uses his Bible as reference book and then compiled a list of verses and spouted the infamous lie that Calvinists do not believe in evangelism and missions, despite the fact that the greatest preachers and evangelists (e.g. George Whitefield, C. H. Spurgeon, etc.), the leaders of great revivals (e.g. Jonathan Edwards), and the one who is called the father of modern missions–William Carey–were all Calvinists.

It is in this context that we teach the ignorant. Most people who fill our churches have not been, as the apostle commanded, “transformed by the renewal of their minds,” but instead attempt to conform Scripture to their minds. For this reason, people hold to such doctrines as free will, not because Scripture teaches that men are free, but because they believe that they are free because their experience teaches them that they are free. They have no categories for being dead in their trespasses, enslaved to sin and death, blind and deaf to the truth, etc.–all of which Scripture declares of those apart from Christ. Thus, people in our churches presumptuously believe that if men are commanded to do something by God that they by their nature and strength have the ability to do it, and they strive, like foolish Nicodemus, to crawl back into their mothers’ wombs because God commanded them to be born again.

Please forgive me for the lengthy introduction, but I believe that it is necessary to understand the nature of the beast with which we have to deal. And now we come to 1 Timothy 2:4, where the apostle writes, “[God] desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” This text seems to be straightforward on the surface, and it seems pretty safe by its declaration to do what Sunday School literature has done for decades, viz. cut out Romans 9-11 from their literature. But again, therein lies the assumption that we saw in John 3:16′s kosmos, namely that “all” means every person who has ever lived since Adam to the telos despite class, race, etc. But let us step back a couple of verses in 1 Timothy 2 just to make sure this interpretation is the apostle’s intention.

In 1 Timothy 2:1, the apostle writes, “First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people.” Given that this verse is in the context of the “all people” in verse 2:4, it is probably safe to say and destructive not to say that Paul is speaking of the same persons in verse 1 as he is in verse 4. Now, let us add verse 2 to verse 1, “First of all, then, I urge that supplications, etc. … be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way.” Did you see what the apostle did? He clarified all people with “kings and all who are in high positions.” Why? So that Christians might live peaceful and godly lives in the state where they live.

As in John 3:16, where Nicodemus the devout Jewish Pharisee was told that Jesus the Messiah came not merely for the Jews but for all the Nations, so the impoverished Christians who are being addressed through the apostle’s letter to young Timothy are learning that Jesus did not merely come for the poor, but he came for all classes of men, even for kings and those who are in authority. Here in 1 Timothy 2:1-4, we find reinforcement that the Gospel is not a social gospel, nor is it a racial Gospel as Nicodemus thought in John 3, but it is a universal Gospel. Jesus came to redeem men from all tribes, tongues, social classes, and skin colors. Indeed, we find that this is the apostle’s intentions in this text for he writes in v. 2:7, “For this I [a Pharisaical Jew] was appointed a preacher and an apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying), a teacher to the Gentiles in faith and truth.” In other words, God appointed Paul, a Jew of Jews, to be the preacher to the Gentiles to demonstrate that God’s Gospel is not for a single people, but for the whole world.

Is not this a better understanding of the text than a cheap proof text? I implore you, no matter your theological tendencies, read God’s Word as God intended for it to be read. The devil knows the Scriptures much better than you or I do, and he has twisted them from the beginning of time to serve his purposes. Please do not be like him.

Ten years ago, Haley and I began dating in high school. At that time, neither of us sought the Lord (evidenced by the way we consistently lived our lives), though you could find us in a church almost every week. We were both foolish, typical teenagers and believed that our lives were defined by high school, being cool, and each other. We, being the petty American adolescents that we were, dated off and on during those years, to suit whatever particular moods we were in or whatever fancies we had, and never truly established what one might called a meaningful and intimate relationship.

Upon our graduation from high school, we were together but found ourselves heading in different directions. Haley began taking classes at Meredith College, and I, after a semester off after high school, began my first and last semester at Wake Tech. It was at that time that the Lord started working on my heart, using the things that I thought I had ignored from my parents and at church to convict me of my sin and to reveal to me my hopelessness without God. It was also at that time when I was perhaps the most attached to Haley that I had ever been, and, if I recall correctly, she was quite the opposite. Upon those feelings of her heart, we broke off and went our separate ways—she to her particular path, and I to mine.

My grief at that time shaped me profoundly, and at times brought me closer to Christ and at times had me shaking my fist at him. And though I had discarded the secular path in which I was heading and began going to school at Southeastern Baptist Seminary and working at the sacred bookstore called LifeWay, my life was far from stable. In retrospect, I know now that my life was founded on religiosity instead on the Rock who is Jesus Christ, and that foundation, as it should have, crumbled from underneath me.

During this time which spanned several years, passions between Haley and me were on and off—seeming at times as though high school had never ended. At some points, Haley would terribly miss me and seek me out while I was practically apathetic, and at others, I would terribly miss Haley and seek her out while she was practically apathetic. This time of fickleness was continually hit and miss and is perhaps best summed up in three words: two broken engagements.

It was after all these things that it seemed as though our lives had finally and permanently separated. I was particularly bitter and hostile toward the thought of us getting back together, and we managed not to talk or to cross our paths for at least two years. During this time, the Lord finally began to make himself the foundation of my life, and I, after a wicked sabbatical, was back in school at Southeastern and was dangerously close to finishing my degree. Meanwhile, Haley was at Montreat College doing her thing, which I found out later was the same thing that God was doing in my life.

After these two years of avoidance, I received an invitation to attend Haley’s brother and sister-in-law’s renewing of their vows ceremony in February 2006. I was quite reluctant and hesitant to go and still a bit bitter and hostile, but I loved Haley’s family deeply and did wish to see them again.

Upon the arrival of that fateful day, I suited up in the pants, shirt, and tie that I had bought at Kohl’s the day before and drove, with a Yankee Candle air freshener dangling from my rearview mirror, from Raleigh to somewhere in the greater Zebulon area off of NC 96 to the church where the ceremony was to be held. I sat myself on the left side of the church, and gazed at Haley, who was standing up at the front, and was struck by a beauty robed in the dress of a bridesmaid—a beauty that somehow had all but faded from my memory.

Long story short: third engagement’s a charm.:)

Sometimes I regret not having the simple relationship with Haley that I see others have—where they meet, date for a short time, and get married and know little apart from that. From start to present, our journey to arrive at our second anniversary has taken over ten years and is laden with struggles and strife, and grief and happiness. Yet, on the other hand, I am extremely grateful for the way in which our marriage has come about, for while others who are married in the more common way can affirm God as sovereign and might seem glimpses of his Providence here and there in their relationships, Haley and I cannot look at our relationship apart from the Providence of God. Every time that I look into her beautiful face and every time that I kiss her lips, I cannot do so rightly without thinking about my sovereign and merciful God.

The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, now wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance (2Pet. 3:9).

Please allow me to skip my typical rambling and jump straight in (though if you would like an introduction, feel free to read the introduction to yesterday’s post and then come here).

The typical interpretation of this passage from the second letter of Peter is that God is not willing that anyone in the world who has ever lived should perish apart from Christ but that every person in the world should come to repentance. If this is true, this text is nestled quite precariously in a hostile context.

Before we come to this verse, we find the apostle exhorting the Church not to be discouraged by the seeming delay of the Lord’s Coming. We know that he is speaking to the Church because he calls them “beloved” in v. 3:1 and because he exhorts them to remember the predictions of the prophets and the commandment of their Lord and Savior (v. 3:2). He warns them that scoffers will come that will point out that the world in spite of Christ has continued just as it has since the Creation, but they deliberately ignore the fact that the world was destroyed by water in the days of Noah and that it will happen again, except this time it will be fire that destroys the ungodly (v. 3:4-6).

In the immediate context of v. 3:9, we find the apostle speaking of the Lord’s Return and how, to the Church, it seems a long time. Again the apostle demonstrates that he is speaking to the Church by calling them “beloved” in v. 3:8 and comforts them by telling them that the Lord is not slow to fulfill his Promise, for one day is as a thousand years to him and a thousand years is as one day. He then gives us phenomenal picture of the Coming of Christ:

But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed (v. 3:10).

It is within this context that we find the statement: “The Lord is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish but that all should reach repentance.” As we have already seen from the context, this “you” to whom he is speaking is the Church that is awaiting the Return of the Lord. The Lord’s patience towards the Church is manifested in his delayed Coming in order that none should perish but that all should reach repentance. This “none” and this “all” can be taken one of two ways—it can either be taken as none and all in the entire world at every point in time, or it can be taken as none and all in the Church. In the text it is quite clear that the latter option is the one that is to be taken.

What does it mean, then, that God delays his Return so that none in the Church should perish but that all should come to repentance? It means that God has a sovereign plan over the history of the world that has his saints providentially scattered all over its timeline. If the Lord were (this is theory, mind you) to return in the days of the Apostles, those who were elected by God before the foundation of the world in Christ Jesus who were to be born after this return would never exist though God had ordained that they exist (cf. Eph. 1). Also, if God were to Return before the fullness of his Church had come in, one who was ordained to come to repentance by the will of the Spirit the next day, would not come to repentance and would perish because of the Lord’s early return. Therefore, the apostle encourages the Church to be patient, for God has a sovereign plan over history and will not allow any of his saints to perish but will cause them all to come to repentance.

This text also demonstrates quite clearly that the Lord is willing that some should perish. The apostle mentions in v. 3:5 the event of the Great Flood in which many died and perished by the will of God apart from an opportunity to repent. Even now, God is willing that some should perish, for the apostle writes, “But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly (v. 3:7). Within two verses of the text that supposedly demonstrates that God is not willing that anyone on earth should perish is the declaration that the heavens and earth are being kept for that very purpose.

And being that it has been brought up (as it inevitably does) that the doctrines of Romans 9 “contradict” other doctrines in Scripture or that we who “interpret” Romans 9 interpret the text incorrectly (though the Apostle leaves little room for any interpretation in the chapter), I thought that it would be profitable to take a look at some of the texts that supposedly contradict the teachings of Romans 9.

1. John 3:16

For God thus loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life (John 3:16).

This text is a common starting point of those who object to the “vessels of mercy / vessels of wrath” statement that is made in Romans 9. They argue, “If God loved the world so much that he gave his Son for them, why then would he create some just so that he would destroy them for his glory?” This concern might be a valid one in this present understanding of John 3:16, but there are several underlying presuppositions that shape this understanding of this verse that are in fact contrary to the context.

First, is the idea that the term “world” means every single person who has ever lived since the Creation. If this is true, this is a very unique passage indeed for there is no other text in Scripture that refers to the world as such. We find elsewhere, especially in the Prophets, that God did indeed have a plan that was global, but the term was commonly “nations” instead of “world.” Perhaps the one that parallels Christ’s statement in John 3 the most is the prophetic statement by the psalmist: “The Lord said to me, ‘ You are my Son, today I have begotten you; ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage, and the ends of the earth your possession’” (Ps. 2:7, 8). We see the world with respect to Christ in this Psalm, but it has a very different meaning than “every person who has ever lived.”

To understand the use of the term “world” in John 3:16, we must also understand the context in which it is spoken. At the beginning of the chapter, we find that Christ is speaking to Nicodemus, a Pharisee and therefore obviously a Jew. When Christ declares to Nicodemus, “God thus loved the world,” he was saying something quite extraordinary. First, contrary to popular Jewish belief, Yahweh is not merely the God of the Jews, but he is the God of the Nations. Therefore, the Messiah, who many believed was to conquer the Romans and establish Israel as a world power, was actually the Messiah of the world. Second, this statement places Christ as the fulfillment of the covenant to Abraham: “Through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed” (Gen. 22:18). For it is through Christ and the Gospel that God has ordained that the Nations would come to him and be blessed.

Elsewhere in the New Testament, there is this same agreement in the use of the term “world” or “kosmos” as parallel or synonymous to the “nations,” “gentiles,” or “ethnos.” The apostle Paul, in quite poetic fashion, writes in Romans 11 concerning the rejection of Israel:

Now if their trespass means riches for the world,
and if their failure means riches for the nations,
     how much more will their full inclusion mean! (Rm. 11:12).

Here in this passage where Paul demonstrates his inclination toward Hebrew poesy, he creates in the Greek language what is often seen in Psalms and the Prophets, namely Semitic poetic parallelism. In this particular instance, Paul shows that in the least that it was not uncommon to equate the term “kosmos” with “ethnos,” i.e. the term “world” with “nations.” Therefore, given this testimony by the apostle Paul in the Greek, and the allusion of Christ in John 3 to Psalm 2, it is therefore most likely and sound to say that New Testament authors are reiterating the declarations of the Old Testament, namely that God is the God of the Nations and has ordained that the Christ of Abraham’s lineage would be bring the blessing of Righteousness to the Gentiles, just as the apostle testifies in Romans 3, “Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles (or nations) also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since God is one—who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith” (vv. 3:28, 29).

Second, the phrasing, “So whoever believes in him shall not perish,” has been taken to mean that God through Christ has made it so that every person who has ever lived has an opportunity to consider the case of Jesus Christ and then believe or not believe. This, as well, is clearly not true in the context. At the beginning of Jesus’ encounter with Nicodemus, we find that Jesus tells Nicodemus (without his asking, mind you) that a person cannot see the Kingdom of God unless he is born again. Perplexed, Nicodemus asks in response the questions that has had him knocked about in Sunday School classes for centuries: “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?”

We have laughed at Nicodemus for his ridiculous response, but are we any less ridiculous with our responses? Clearly the picture of birth that Christ gives is to demonstrate that something outside of ourselves and without respect to our wills must happen in order for us to be born again, but we in our stubbornness choose not to see that. We say instead, “Accept Jesus as your personal Savior, and then you will be born again.” But is that really how our salvation happens? No, it is not, and we are no different than Nicodemus who looks to see what work he must do to be born again. We, like Nicodemus, in our folly try to make the new birth something that we cause, but in reality we do not cause it, for Jesus’ response to Nicodemus is not, “Accept me as your Savior,” nor is it do this and do that, but it is, “The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit” (John 3:8).

Therefore, in the context, he who believes in Christ in v. 3:16 is he who has been born again by the will of the Spirit in v. 3:8. It is in this same thought that Peter writes, “Blessed by the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to his great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope” (1Pet. 1:3) and that the Evangelist writes later in his Gospel, “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him” (John 6:44). Seeing this, we see that not only is the Apostle Paul in Romans 9 is in accord with Jesus Christ in John 3:16, but he is in accord with the Apostles John and Peter thereby defeating the misperceived contradiction in John 3:16.

Next: Addressing Texts that “Contradict” Romans 9, II. 2 Peter 3:9

But if Paul’s illustration utilizing the Pharaoh was not enough to convince us of the universality of this text, the apostle makes this point crystal clear at the end of his most difficult passage concerning the sovereignty of God, viz. vv. 9:19-23, writing, “What if God [did these things] … to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?” (vv. 9:22-24). Paul demonstrates in these verses that not only are the Gentiles included in his election, but that God had deemed it that some Gentiles, just like some Jews, would be vessels of mercy and some would be vessels of wrath beforehand, i.e. before the foundation of the world (cf. Eph. 1:4).

Then there are others who object, “This is hypothetical; the apostle makes this so by using ‘what if’ at the beginning of his declaration.” This objection is ridiculous as well, for it is obvious that, one, the form of the question is a rhetorical response to the haughty who think themselves wise enough to question God in v. 9:19, two, the previous context of vv. 9:6-18 drives us to the apostle’s present conclusion, and three, the apostle’s quotation from Hosea serves to demonstrate the point that he had just made in vv. 9:19-24. He writes:

As indeed he says in Hosea, “Those who were not my people I will call ‘my people,’ and her who was not beloved I will call ‘beloved.’ And in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ there they will be called ‘sons of the living God’” (vv. 9:25, 26; cf. Hos. 2:23).

In this, Paul demonstrates, not only that God calls Gentiles to be his children, but that it has always been the intention of his Promise to call out a people that consisted of both Jews and Gentiles to himself.

This calling of both the Jew and Gentile to sonship has nothing to do with the disobedience of Israel or with the worthiness of the Gentiles, but it has everything to do with the good and sovereign pleasure of God. Before we as Gentiles boast over Israel and before we ridicule them for their Old Testament follies and their murder of the Messiah, we must behold and accept the silencing doctrine of God’s election. Were is not for God’s grace and his sustaining power, we who are the called would certainly become like Sodom and Gomorrah (cf. 9:29). Praise him!

Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory? (Romans 9:21-23).

Before we begin, we must realize that it is only once we have laid ourselves out before the Creator in proper humility that we can begin to grasp the weight and purpose of this text. Yet, some who would understand this text come to it arrogantly and, instead of making themselves students, place themselves in the seat of the Judge and walk away declaring, “It cannot be; I will not accept it.” Others (with whom I must admit my former association), come to this text and leave it arrogantly, having comprehended the truths therein that others have refused and use it as a propagation for their own “superior” understanding. Then there are the holy ones, who by the power of the Holy Spirit understand the truths of this text and cry out, “Lord, thou art the Potter; I am but an earthen vessel manipulated by thine hand.” It is only by these that the truths of this text have been properly understood.

Now, the Scripture declares to us that all humans are but a lump of clay to the Creator. Out of this clay, by his good pleasure, he creates some vessels that are honorable, and he creates some that are dishonorable. The vessels that are created for honor are not honorable because of their superior clay-ness or their beautiful craftsmanship (though this cannot be denied) but because of what they contain, viz. the unmerited mercy of God. Likewise, the vessels that are created for dishonor are not dishonorable because of their inferior composition or their shoddy craftsmanship but because of what they contain, viz. the wrath of God poured out against sin.

Both vessels, the honorable and the dishonorable, share one commonality—they both declare the glory of God by manifesting his attributes. In the dishonorable vessels, God makes known his wrath and his power by utterly destroying them for their transgressions. In the honorable vessels, God, through the blood and righteousness of Jesus Christ, makes known the glorious depths of his mercy by withholding his hand of just wrath from them and then by placing those vessels in the place of honor for which they were prepared. To some he gives their just desserts; to the others he gives everything that they do not deserve.

What if God did all this—what if he has endured with great patience the wickedness of all those who are in the world who will not worship him in Spirit and in Truth to demonstrate to those whom he has chosen before the foundation of the world and whom he has prepared for glory the riches of his glory and the depths of his mercy? If we knew this and accepted it, I believe that we who are vessels of mercy would be extremely humble, gracious to others, and grateful to God for not destroying us and for granting us his glorious mercy.

Next: God the Potter, IV. Mercy to the Jews and Gentiles

You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? (Romans 9:19-21)

You have heard it said, “There is no such thing as a stupid question,” and that may well be true insofar as our human relationships go, but when we as humans come to God the Creator with our questions, we must have a different approach and do so by understanding who we are and who God is.

Our chief problem as a race is our original problem—we desire to ascend and place ourselves where God is, and we desire to make God as ourselves. Eve saw that the fruit was good to eat, but it was not till the serpent hissed, “You will be like God,” that she took she took the fruit and ate it. We have not deviated from this course since our first parents charted it, and as Voltaire rightly said, “God made man in his image, and man has ever since returned him the favor.”

We see ourselves as gods, and we look at the Almighty as though he were a man. The apostle, however, gives us a different picture in these verses, viz. that we are to God as a pot of clay is to a potter; we are dirt mixed with water formed and moved by the all powerful hands of a much more significant Being. In our relationship to the Infinite, I believe the picture of us as clay and as God as a potter gives us much more significance in relationship to Yahweh than is rightly due, which is to say in comparison to God our most generous estimation of worth is found in dirt.

What does this estimation of ourselves with respect to God make of our questions to him? It should shut our mouths and make us attentive listeners and learners of God’s Word and not judges over it. And it is this context in which we find some asking the questions, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” (v. 9:19). Paul, unlike many other times in his letters, does not give an answer or justification for the ways of God, but simply responds, “Who are you, O man, to answer back to God?” Who are we indeed! We are to God a mere lump of clay in the hand of him, the Potter, and we demand him to justify his ordinances? Our only proper response is to shut our mouths and prostrate ourselves before the Almighty.

Next: God the Potter, III. Vessels of Wrath

In our first study on vv. 9:6-13, the apostle focused on God’s sovereign choice of and through whom the Promise would be fulfilled. This paragraph by its nature focused on Abraham and his immediate descendents and how God defied all human laws of primogeniture and chose Isaac and Jacob in order that his purpose of election might be demonstrated (v. 9:11). The section also included the quotation from Malachi 1, which read, “Jacob I have loved, and Esau I have hated.” We saw that this hate in its original context was not merely temporal, but it was eternal, for the prophet writes, “[Edom] may build, but I will tear down; and men will call them the wicked territory, and the people toward whom the Lord is indignant forever.”

Our right understanding of the apostle led us into his rhetorical question and its explanation in vv. 9:14-18: “What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means!” (v. 9:14). We saw that the apostle, instead of appealing to the wisdom of man to justify God’s dealings with Edom, appealed to holy Scripture, which said, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion” (Ex. 33:19). By this, the apostle shows that God has never acted contrary to his Rule of mercy, whereby he gives mercy to whomever he wills according to his good pleasure (cf. Jonah 3:6-10). Not only this, but to whom he does not give mercy he also hardens as he demonstrates in Pharaoh. Thus the apostle concludes, “So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills” (v. 9:18).

Some might object, “You have clearly misunderstood the Apostle’s teaching here, for it contradicts other Scriptures.” Might I then respond by saying that you who object might have misinterpreted those Scriptures which you believe contradict these holy verses. For it is only this conclusion that justifies the Apostle’s response in v. 9:19: “You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who are you, O man, to answer back to God?” There is no other conclusion apart from this one—you either accept it or you do not. Many do not, which explains why I have seen published Sunday School literature for the book of Romans from a “reliable” source that skips over chapters nine through eleven, which is quite pitiable if not damnable (cf. Rev. 23:18). Knowing that it is God who penned these words through the apostle, I therefore advise one to be wise in his responses to the doctrines of this text.

Next: God the Potter, II. Vessels for Honor & Dishonor