Henry Thomas is correct” only if that section of Romans 9 is dealing with the salvation of the individual. If, however, the theme of Roman”s nine is different, if it speaks, say of the predestination of service, then one can hold an Arminian position and raise the objections that Paul raises.
In the beginning of Romans 9, Paul is writing about the seed of Abraham and how God chose that the line was used as a tool. This sets the tone for Romans 9, that the election that God uses to unfold his plan of history. Paul then goes on to write about the line of Christ and its election, one that God decided apart from any merit on any person”s part. The call that is written about here is not towards faith in Christ or God, but it is a call to service. This is then expanded from a discussion on Jacob and Esau to a discussion of their descendants, as noted by Paul by his quotation of Malachi; writing, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” In Malachi, this phrase is denoting the nations of Jacob and Esau ” Israel and Edom. It should also be noted that the terms “loved” and “hated” misstate the issue. Translated properly, it should read “loved more” and “loved less.” Malachi, and thus Paul is not speaking about the election of salvation, but on the lineage of the Messiah. That is what depended upon God. Dr. Reese writes about this passage in his commentary on Romans.
Paul”s argument, so far, is one with which few Jews would find fault. The Arabs were the descendants of Ishmael who was a flesh and blood descendant of Abraham; but the Jews would never dream of saying that the Arabs are included in the “seed.” The Edomites were the descendants of Esau, and Esau was a true son of Issac, and the twin brother of Jacob; but no Jew would ever have included the Edomites in the “seed.” They could hardly disagree with Paul”s emphasis that God has been making choices all through history, selecting this one and bypassing that one, without being unfaithful to the promise about “seed” that He made to the patriarchs1
In verses 9:17 Paul further emphasizes the theme of the passage; the election in God”s formation of history, not salvation, with a discussion of Pharaoh. Paul quotes Moses” conversation with Pharaoh to show that God acted in Pharaoh”s life to spare him from the plagues so that Pharaoh might be a mouthpiece of God - through Pharaoh”s life, God”s name might be proclaimed throughout the earth. Reese notes that the turn of phrase here indicates that God spared Pharaoh”s life, he did not create nor change Pharaoh as or into a monster, writing, “[b]oth in the Hebrew and the Septuagint, the idea is that Pharaoh had been kept alive instead of being cut off, that God”s power might be displayed in him.2” Was God doing injustice via this choice? Paul says no. But once again, the theme is the service and use in history, not of personal salvation.
Exactly how is this injustice denied? There is mention of God hardening the heart of Pharaoh, both in Exodus and in Romans. What does this mean? Reese notes that there is no mention of God making Pharaoh”s heart being hard to begin with. Reese explains the idea of hardening in the footnotes to his commentary on 9:18:
God himself is said to have hardened Pharaoh”s heart” [i]t is thus certainly declared to that this hardening is from God. But even so, it is nowhere said that God had made Pharaoh”s heart hard from the first, so that, after a willful resistance to appeal, final obduracy was sent on him as a judgment.3
We see evidence of this in Pharaoh hardening his own heart in Ex 9:34 and Ex 7:15-21; in other places it is said that God further hardened his heart. Therefore, one can conclude that once Pharaoh decided to act against God”s plan for him, instead of striking Pharaoh down, God decided to use him anyway, although through alternative means. The Bible does make it clear that God is sovereign in everything, yet does decide to allow humans to have the exercise of free will.
Thus, the charge brought by the objector in 9:11 and is answered in 9:14, that God is unjust in his selections in history, does come up within a Arminian interpretation.
Footnotes:
1) Reese, Gareth. New Testament Epistles: Romans p.386.
2) Ibid. 391.
3) Ibid. 391.
Aside: I’ll be pretty busy until Wednesday afternoon, so don’t expect any responses on this until afterward. Also, in this post I am only talking about 9:11 and 9:14. That is not to say I am ignoring the rest of the passage nor the letter of Romans.
This is cross-posted at the Unsound Argument, but would like to discuss it here. I have copied Hank’s first comment over here for that purpose.
3 Comments
First of all, it is about time you posted this. I have been waiting a while for it and it is good to see this post. This is going to be fun and may be we should get ‘Bob over here for this. I am going to limit my response to a series of questions that I hope you will answer.
1.) Your interpretation, or that of Dr. Reese, fails to take into account Romans 9:1-5. It is here that I find the issue of salvation for here Paul speaks of wishing to be “accursed and cut off from Christ” (v.3). Considering Romans 8:37-39 says that no one can be cut off from God’s saving love and considering Paul’s use of “accursed” in the only two other places in his writings (Galatians 1:8-9), how does this interpretation fit in with this?
2.) In Romans 1:16-8:39, Paul is speaking about salvation. In Romans 9:30-11:33, Paul is speaking about salvation again. It seems that the interpretation offered breaks the flow of thought in the sub-unit of Romans 9-11, the larger unit of Romans 1-11, and the overall flow of the epistle itself. How does this interpretation fit into the flow of Paul’s thought in Romans?
3.) All of the lexical work I’ve seen on the Hebrew term sane’ and the Greek term miseo takes the term to mean hate or hatred, not loved less. Similarly, all of the lexical work I’ve seen on the Hebrew term ahab and the Greek term agapao takes the terms to mean love, not love more. On what basis does Dr. Reese make the distinction of “loved more” and “loved less” vs. “loved” and “hated?”
4.) It is true that we do not see the text say “and God hardened Pharaoh’s heart” until after Pharaoh hardened his heart first. But nearly every time Pharaoh’s heart is hardened, whether he did it himself or God did or it was just hardened, we see something like “as the LORD had said.” In Exodus 4:21, God told Moses to do all of the miracles that God had put into his power. But God was going to harden Pharaoh’s heart so that he won’t listen to Moses and the miracle he performs. This statement was made in the cave with the burning bush before Moses left Midian to go to Egypt on his mission to free the Hebrew slaves. How does this interpretation you have presented incorporate Exodus 4:21 and still maintain that God hardened after Pharaoh did? If every hardening was as the LORD had said, and God said he was going to harden Pharaoh, then it is very difficult for me to ascribe to this interpretation.
I would grant that in Malachi the scope of the passage Paul cites in Romans 9 is national. This is a pretty standard Libertarian way to deal with Romans 9. BUT, hare not nations made up of individuals? The whole notion that there is this nation called Israel who God has hand picked and almost exclusively sets His favor on excludes a lot of individuals from nations that were not part of Israel.
So when you say: ” Was God doing injustice via this choice? Paul says no. But once again, the theme is the service and use in history, not of personal salvation.”
I think this is to go too far. Paul says it is “Not of him who will or him who runs but God who shows mercy” That is one example of a focus on individuals. The proceeding verses also seem to indicate that it is individualse who are in the scope of this election.
“But who are you, O man [singular], to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?”
And I would also contend that Pharaoh, Esau, and Jacob were all individuals in real time and space who experienced the doctrine of election or reprobation.
That said I think individuals are certainly in the scope of paul’s writing here. I mean he goes on to express his hearts sorrow of the lostness of Israel I don’t think this was sorrow out of patriotism but sorrow for individuals he loved who were Israelites and rejected the Messiah.
Again, this assumes that Paul has the same scope as Malachi did when he penned the words Paul quotes. It doesn’t necessarily follow that just because that was Malachi’s scope when he wrote those words that it is Paul’s when he cites them in Roman’s 9. You will notice that the apostle’s often cite texts and give them New Covenant meaning when they meant something different in their original context. So I think it is hasty to say “X is what Malachi meant so that is what Paul meant too.”
It takes a while (and I am busy) to answer your objections, so I will take them one at a time. Hank, I have addressed your #3 in a new post: Hated and Loved :: Esau and Jacob.