D. Michael Turner
GOD’S SOVEREIGN CHOICE: An exposition of Romans 9:14-18
TRANSLATION
9:14 What shall we say then?
God is not unjust, is He?
Absolutely not!
9:15
for to Moses he said,
I will have mercy on whom I have mercy
And I will have compassion on whom I will
compassion.
9:16
Therefore, it is not of him who wills
Nor of him who runs,
But of God who shows mercy.
9:17
for the Scripture says of Pharaoh,
For his very purpose I raised you up
In order that I might demonstrate my power in you
And in order that I might proclaim far and wide
My name in all the earth.
9:18
Therefore,
on whom He desires
He has mercy and on whom
He desires He hardens.
SYNTHETIC OVERVIEW
The Message
In answer to the objection that election, which is the result of God’s
purpose is unjust, Paul explains that election is not dependent on man’s
conception of justice but on God’s sovereign and fee choice.
Exegetical Outline
Introduction: Paul continues his argument for divine
election.
I. Paul asks the question, “Shall we conclude (that because God elects
according to His
purpose v. 11) that God is unjust? (14a)
II. Paul answers his own question, “Absolutely not!” (14b)
A.
The reason why (gar) God is
not unjust is that election is the result of God’s
sovereign will. (15,16)
1. Paul quotes God’s word to Moses to show that God will show mercy and
compassion on whomever He so wills. (15)
a. The result of God’s choice is not dependent on a man’s will. (15a)
b. The result of God’s choice is not dependent on a man’s working for
it.
(15b)
c. The result of God’s choice is grounded in His mercy. (15c)
purpose.
a. The reason God raised up Pharaoh was to demonstrate His power in
him.
(17a)
b. The reason why God raised up Pharaoh was to proclaim His name in
all
the earth. (17b)
B. Paul concludes that the reason why God is not unjust is that election
is the result
of His sovereign will. (18)
1. On whom God desires to show mercy He shows mercy – Moses. (18a)
2. On whom God desires to harden he hardens – Pharaoh. (18b)
Conclusion: God’s choice for individuals is not determined as a result of anything in man, but is made by God’s sovereign free will as He sees fit to place in His divine plan.
EXEGETICAL EXPOSITION
Introduction
Of all biblical passages said to teach the sovereign choice of God in election, none is more central than Romans 9. It is here that Paul lays out his theological argument that God sovereignly chooses whomsoever He wills to be the recipient of His mercy. This teaching, though not popular in many Christian circles, must be concluded from Paul’s writing if one is to be honest with his argument. From grammatical, syntactical and contextual evaluation, as well as an investigation of the Old Testament passages he uses to support his argument, it must be concluded that Paul teaches that God chooses whom He desires to be the recipient of His mercy.
Context of Romans 9:14-18
Paul does not leave the discussion concerning Israel stationary with election. In chapter 10 he repeats his concern over the nation and then shows why the nation is responsible for God’s present dealings with them. In chapter 11 Paul encourages believers by telling them that no all the nation has been rejected, but that a remnant, chosen by His grace (vs. 5) will continue into the promise. In 11:25-32 he tells them that the time will come when all Israel will be saved. Thus Paul completes his answer to the possible assumption that God has failed in His word.
It is within this context that Romans 9:14-18 must be understood. The teaching of divine election is here contextually restricted to the nation of Israel. His purpose in writing it was to show that God is true to His Word and will fulfill His promises and covenants to Israel. This is indeed encouraging to the believers who must have questioned Paul’s exposition of their security in Romans 8:31-39, “If God had gone back on His word to Israel, why should we think He will not do the same with us: may have been their thoughts. Paul’s answer was “God did not abandon Israel, or did He go back on His word to her, thus you can be assured He will do neither to you.”
GOD IS UNFAIR
God’s Mercy to Moses (vs. 15-16)
That this is Paul’s emphasis[9] is evidence in his explanation (ara oun) in verse 16, “therefore, it [10] is not of him who wills, no of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy”. God is not obligated to respond to the compassions or efforts of men. He can not be manipulated as were the pagan god’s by the willful desires of men nor by the false external righteousness of legalistic Jews. God knows the heart of men and thus can not be persuaded by external sources to execute His mercy. Mercy is grounded in His own being and is demonstrated towards men as a result of His own desires as they are consistent with His purposes.
Paul’s Conclusion (vs. 18)
After giving the two illustrations between Moses and Pharaoh, Paul summarizes that God’s right to choose is determined by His own sovereign will. The first clause in verse 18 is a repetition of his conclusion in verse 16 concerning God’s freedom to exercise His mercy on whomever He pleases. The second clause is a summary and explanation of verse 17.[18] Not only does God have the divine option to show mercy on whom He desires, He also has the same sovereign freedom to harden the heart of whomever He desires.[19] In the case of Pharaoh this hardening was unconditional.[20] God hardened Pharaoh’s heart in order to accomplish His divine purpose of demonstrating His mercy to Israel. This does not mean that God acted contrary to the nature of Pharaoh. Rather, that it was Pharaoh’s very nature to show abstinence towards God’s plan is demonstrated in his own willful act of hardening his own heart on several occasions. Pharaoh was himself unaware of God having an influence over his will because that influence was in harmony with who Pharaoh was. But, to say that God’s act of hardening Pharaoh’s heart was a punishment for hardening his own heart[21] stands contrary to the chronological sequence of the Exodus narrative and weakens the force of God’s superiority over Pharaoh and the spiritual conflict between the two (see appendix).
Author’s Conclusion
God has the right to exercise mercy to whomever He chooses and to harden whomever He chooses because He is sovereign. This does not make God unjust. God is the author of justice and is not dependent on either man’s interpretation of justice, man’s desire to receive God’s mercy, nor man’s works to receive God’s mercy. Man’s condition of unrighteousness (Romans 5:12-21) excludes man from a say in the matter altogether.
To properly understand this passage it should not be read in isolation from the rest of Romans. Paul places the doctrine of divine election and the doctrine of human responsibility side-by-side and the two should always be viewed as such. Though God hardened the heart of Pharaoh, he was still responsible for his actions because the hardening was not done outside of the context of Pharaoh’s nature. Pharaoh himself would have denied that God had any influence over his will or actions and thus condemns himself as viewing himself as the author of his actions.
A distinction needs to be drawn between Pharaoh and Israel. Pharaoh’s hardening was unconditional, in that he was not hardened because of any previous act on his part, but he was hardened in order that God might show His mercy to Israel. In the case of Israel (Romans 11:7) the hardening was conditional. God hardened Israel because of their consistent disobedience and unbelief (Romans 9:30-11:10). Even here however, it should be remembered that His hardening was not passive but active, for “God have them a spirit of stupor, eyes so that they could not see and ears so that they could not hear” (Romans 11:8). Human responsibility is not eliminated by God’s sovereign choice (Romans 9:19). Rather, the very nature of God’s sovereignty increases man’s accountability to God in that man fails to see or acknowledge that sovereignty (Romans 9:20).
The position of chapters 9-11 in Romans has specific applicational value for the Christian. Chapter 8 ended Paul’s discourse on the enormous spiritual benefits and security the believer has in Christ. Before entering into an exposition of the imperative responsibilities the believer has in response to his position Paul makes sure that the believers are not left with a sense insecurity due to a misunderstanding of God’s dealings with the nation of Israel. After all, did God not give national Israel similar promises, and did He not go back on His word to them?
Paul’s purpose was to show first, that God had not gone back on His promises to Israel, and second, that it was their irresponsibility with what God had given them that have caused the temporary withdrawal of His mercy. This is meant to show his Christian readers that their position in Christ was as secure as he had stated in chapter 8 and also to provoke them to recognize that God does hold them responsible for how they respond to what He has given them. This is the content of chapters 12-15.
Paul’s message to his readers is just as relevant today as it was when Paul wrote it. The sovereign God bases His decisions in the perfections of His own person. These choices are made to exhibit His glory to those He has chosen to show His mercy. As believers we should grasp hold of the enormous benefits He has provided for us in Christ and in doing so be stimulated to respond in appreciation with works of righteousness.
Appendix
Is there more at stake in the Exodus narrative of the plagues and the hardening of the heart of Pharaoh than the salvation of Israel from bondage? God could have easily delivered Israel from Egypt with a single plague had that been His desire (Exodus 9:15). But He says “I have raised you up for this very purpose, that I might show my power and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth” (Exodus 9:16). One way God would demonstrate His power and have His name proclaimed was by showing His great superiority over each of the gods of Egypt and eventually over Pharaoh, also a god. The issue at hand is more than the power of salvation, but includes the superiority and sovereignty of YHWH over the gods of Egypt.
Egypt was a nation of many gods. Undoubtedly, some of these gods began to have an influence over many of the Israelites, just as the gods of Canaan would influence their descendents. God’s purpose in each of the plagues was to show the Israelites His superiority over these gods by executing His judgment upon them. The following list has been compiled from the New Bible Dictionary and from Unger’s Bible Handbook.
9th Plague – Darkness was a judgment against the sun god Re.
1. In the 15th century B.C. Pharaohs were viewed as “the god
of heaven and eart
(Exodus 9:29)
2. “From the time of earliest Egyptian dynasties and throughout Egyptian
history the
Pharaoh was viewed as the primary god of the world.”
3. He was associated with the three most important gods of
Egypt:
Re, Horus and Osiris
with himself as the most important.
4. Thutmose III was considered as the incarnation of Re and was called “son of Re”.
5. Pharaoh was the high priest who mediated between man and the gods.
6. He was called “savior of Egypt” because he was seen as the
only one in Egyptian
society able to defeat foreign enemies.
7. He was known as “war god” which was the main characteristic of Horus and Re.
8. He received the epithet predicted of Osiris, “King of the gods, Power
of heave, Lord of
Living…Universal god.”
9.
He was viewed as the divine source and maintainer of truth, justice,
wisdom,
intellectual power and life.
10. After his death he became the god of the netherworld as Osiris.
11.
“War likeness” was his central attribute. This and others made him a
person
esteemed, deserving worship even in his earthly life.
What is seen in the Exodus narrative is a confrontation between the sovereign Lord of Israel and the lord of Egypt. God’s ability to harden Pharaoh’s heart must have been an encouraging sign to Moses who had once lived in the courts of Pharaoh. This hardening was to Moses an intense display of the superiority of YHWH over Pharaoh and was YHWH’s way of giving Moses confidence in the midst of this great confrontation. YHWH’s power was so great that He could even manipulate the will of Pharaoh to conform to His plans. To strip the unconditional element of the divine hardening of Pharaoh by YHWH from the Exodus narrative is to rob God of His divine right to be sovereign over all.
[1] What shall we say? ti ouv eroumen occurs seven times in Romans (4:1; 3:5; 6:1; 7:7; 8:31; 9:14, 30). In 3:5; 6:1; 7:7 and here it is followed by another question and then by mh genoito. “Paul uses this formula at a point where he recognizes that a false conclusion could be drawn, instead of the true one, from what he has just been saying: in these passages his method is to indicate and reject the possible false conclusion before stating his own conclusion. The ti (oun) eroumen; introduces the indication of the false inference.” Cranfield, pp. 481-2
[2] This is a general teaching of the New Testament not restricted to Pauline authorship. See John 1:13; 3:6
[3] “Hate” minew (Luke 1:71; 6:22,27; 14: 26; 16:13 I John 2:9, etc) when placed in opposition to love it often implies the choice or preference of another and not necessarily active hatred of what is not chosen or preferred. This is certainly true in Luke 14:26 where Jesus tells his followers to hate their fathers, mothers, etc. That such a comparison of affections is in view here is questionable. Paul is quoting from Malachi 1:2, 3. In view here is not a passive comparison of affection but an active show of emotion. The result of God’s love to Jacob is demonstrated in God’s transferring of the blessings to them. In contrast, God’s hate for Esau is actively demonstrated upon his descendents who suffer God’s judgment (Mal. 1:3-4). In this light it appears that God’s hate for Esau is genuine hate.
[4] In Exodus 33:19 Moses is both the recipient of God’s word and the object of His mercy. Moses had requested God to “show me your glory”. God’s response was “I will cause all my goodness to pass in front of you, and I will proclaim my name, the LORD, in your presence. I will have mercy . . . etc.” God’s mercy to Moses was evidence in His demonstration of divine glory. Paul also sees the inseparable link between mercy and glory (9:23). Glory is the natural consequence of receiving God’s mercy.
[5] “Mercy” ekeos/eleew is used nine times in Romans 9-11 and only two times elsewhere in Romans. Paul’s emphasis in these three chapters is on God’s divine mercy.
[6] “Compassion” oikirnsw/oiktirw should best be understood here as synonymous with mercy. The author’s intent is to accentuate mercy and so it was not used for distinction.
[7] An exact quotation from the LXX
[8] Hodges, p. 313
[9] Cranfield takes Paul’s quotation from Exodus 33:19 as the key point in his argument in verses 14-18. His view is that Paul’s emphasis is not on the sovereignty of God’s will but on the freedom of God’s mercy (p. 483). This view is here rejected in that 1) it forces verses 13 and 17 to conform to a meaning not present in themselves, 2) the mercy of God should be understood within the broad scope of God’s will and not vice-versa. This is particularly evident in vs. 17, and 3) the polemic in the drama of the plagues is an issue of God’s sovereignty over the gods and Pharaoh and should not be restricted to His mercy.
[10] A complication arises in that Paul merely implies the subject. The two primary options are 1) “God’s will”, this is grammatically favored by Cranfield. Its weakness is that it appears redundant and pulls away from what appears to be the purpose for Paul’s argument in verse 11, 2) “The choice”, the disadvantage is the distance of the antecedent which is in verse 11. The advantage is it seems to fit better with the broader context of Paul’s argument. Cranfield attempts to restrict Paul’s meaning to center around vs. 15 and the concept of mercy. It seems better, in light of the ongoing parallel contrasts throughout the chapter to view verse 11 as central.
[11] Interpretations can be placed into four general categories (taken from The Exodus hardening Motif of YHWH as a Polemic by G. Kimball Beale, a DTS Thesis): 1) The conditional retribution view – the divine hardening came as a punishment after Pharaoh’s free will act of hardening himself; 2) the antinomy view – God truly hardened Pharaoh’s heart and yet somehow – Pharaoh also hardened it at the same time, both are genuinely responsible for the hardening; 3) the unconditional or sovereign view – that god unconditionally hardened Pharaoh’s heart in order to accomplish His Heilsgeschichte purposes maintaining absolute control of the hardening; 4) some commentators are unclear (p. 61).
[12] In verse 15 Paul says “for to Moses He (God) said” but in this verse “the Scripture says to Pharaoh”. To Paul the “Scripture” is tantamount to the actual words of God.
[13] The quote differs from Exodus 9:16 in the LXX in several respects: 1) Paul uses eis auto touto, instead of kai eneki toutou - his use is more forceful and better represent the MT. It gives more emphasis on purpose; 2) exhgeige se replaces LXX diethrhqhs. The latter means “keeping alive” whereas the former is more general and can best be understood to mean “caused to appear on the stage of history. 3) ina . . . kai opws . . ., making the clause formally parallel. Cranfield
[14] The preposition eis is understood here to mean “for this purpose”. See BAG p. 228.4f
[15] Literally “I have caused you to stand” has been interpreted in the four following ways, 1) I have called you into existence. This is inconsistent with the MT but possible in Paul’s usage. Paul’s use however is closer to the MT than to the LXX. Dme in the MT never carries the idea of creating and thus this is probably not Paul’s meaning. 2) “I have preserved you”. This meaning is the most consistent with the context of Exodus, especially with 9:15. The idea is of keeping alive. 3) “I have raised you up as king.” This appears too definite for both the Exodus account and for Paul. 4) “I have placed and continued in the past.” This is the choice of Charles Hodges. Either this or number 2 are adequate for Paul’s use.
[16] Cranfield’s suggestion that dunamis qeon in this verse is restricted to saving power and not, unqualified power is her rejected. The reasons are 1) the preposition en in en soi can either mean “with” or “in” but in light of verse 18 ov de qelei sklhrunei suggests an inward act of God’s will on Pharaoh. The demonstration of God’s power is far from restricted to “saving power”, 2) the polemic between YHWH and the gods and YHWH and Pharaoh suggest more than saving power (see appendix).
[17] Cranfield’s statement, “But the showing of God’s saving power and the publishing abroad of His name, of His self-revelation, of His truth – this is the very purpose of God’s election of Israel” (p. 488) is inadequate. God’s purpose for choosing Israel also includes His faithfulness to his promises and covenant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
[18] It is grammatically possible to see verse 18 as a summary to vs. 17 in the same manner that 16 concluded 15. The logical sequence, and Paul’s overall argument seems to suggest that he is attaching vs. 18a to 15 and 16 and connecting 18b as a summary of vs. 17. This is also consistent with the Exodus account.
[19] If Paul intended each of the contrasting parallels in chapter nine to be tied together into a harmonious unit it would lend support for double predestination. The other alternative would be to see the last two parallel connections only to 14-18 and thus limited the force of “perdition” to Pharaoh. The following demonstrates the former view
Vs. 9 Isaac
Vs. 10-13 Jacob vs. 19-21 vessels of noble use
Vs. 14-18 Moses vs. 22-24 vessels of mercy
Vs. 9 Ishmael
Vs. 10-13 Esau vs. 19-21 vessels of common use
Vs. 14-18 Pharaoh vs. 22-24 objects of wrath prepared for destruction.
In fairness to the text the structure and progress of Paul’s argument favors this view. The question is not whether some men are not prepared for destruction (specifically Pharaoh), but if this includes all the non-elect.
[20] See definition of unconditional hardening under footnote 10.
[21] Hodge state, “Pharaoh was no worse than many other men who have obtained mercy; yet god, for wise and benevolent reasons, withheld from his the saving influence of his grace, and gave his up to his own wicked heart, so that he became more and more hardened, until he was finally destroyed. God did nothing to Pharaoh beyond his strict deserts. He did not make him wicked; he only forbore to make him good, by the exertion of special and altogether unmerited grace” (p.314). This explanation shows God as passive rather than active. God does not harden; He merely allows Pharaoh to harder his own heart. The view of our paper presents God as active in hardening Pharaoh’s heart, but not outside of the character of Pharaoh.