Paul's Puzzle

Romans 9 is, as far as I can see, abundantly clear in what it is saying. In order to avoid what it is clearly saying, many have opted to "do a dance." That is, "It cannot be saying what we see it is saying, so it must mean something else." Why can't it? Because what it is clearly saying is not acceptable in many circles, not because it cannot mean what it says. So they make it about groups, not individuals, or they make it about historic events, not current events. Something to dodge the fact that the text is talking about predestination and individual election.

There you have it. I said it. Just those two terms will set people off. Without examining a single argument more, for many it is "lights out." This conversation is over. Move on. They might even "take up arms," so to speak, ready to do battle against such nonsense. That's fine, but it doesn't address the elephant in the chapter. Individual election and predestination are in there. All of Paul's arguments in this chapter revolve around individuals, not groups. God chose Isaac over Ishmael (Rom 9:7-8) and Jacob over Esau (Rom 9:13) and did not choose Pharaoh (Rom 9:17). The Jacob and Esau story is specifically on the basis of God's choice rather than anything either of them had done or would do (Rom 9:12-13). Further, Paul, understanding that this concept would be controversial, goes on to address the controversy. Objection #1: "Wouldn't that make God unfair?" (Rom 9:14). No. Salvation does not depend on human will or effort, but on God (Rom 9:16. "He has mercy on whomever He wills, and He hardens whomever He wills" (Rom 9:18). (Try to put that in terms of "groups" and not individuals.) Objection #2: "If that's true, how can God hold anyone responsible? Who can resist His will?" (Rom 9:19). Paul's answer here is "You don't get to question God. The potter has the right over the clay" (Rom 9:20-21).

I think it is abundantly clear that this text is absolutely about God choosing whom to save and whom He will not save. I think that it takes a prior commitment to opposing that view to understand this text any other way. I think if this text is made to be talking about "back then but not now" or "Groups, not individuals are in view here," it eliminates most of the meaning of the text. For instance, if God is choosing to save some, but who they are depends on those who choose to receive Him, who can object? Why would there be these two objections Paul answers? And if it is based on who chooses, how is that not on the basis of what we will do rather than "God's purpose of election ... because of Him who calls" (Rom 9:11)? It seems as if Paul has gone a long way to make this clear and it seems like we are willing to go an equal distance to make it vague and void of any real meaning.

So what was Paul's puzzle? He didn't seem to have any doubt that God chooses whom He will save (Rom 9:16, 18). He didn't think that it was wrong for God to harden whomever He wills (Rom 9:18). He thought it was the divine right of God to "make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use" (Rom 9:21). We stumble over all those kinds of things. Paul didn't. Paul was surprised by something else.

Paul understood that we are all "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction" and that God was entirely willing to "show His wrath and make known His power" on those vessels (Rom 9:22). Makes sense to Paul. The surprise, then, was not that God would not save some. The surprise to Paul was that God would save any. Justice would require that we all pay for our sin, but God made known the riches of His glory for vessels of mercy which He prepared beforehand for glory (Rom 9:23). Paul's puzzle wasn't the justice of God. It was divine mercy. Given Paul's view of the state of natural man (Rom 3:10-18), judgment made sense. Which only made God's mercy so much bigger!

We tend to take grace and mercy for granted. We expect it from Him. We are baffled and even, sometimes, miffed when He does not appear to show it to some. To many genuine believers, "The gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few" (Matt 7:14) and the like are very strange texts. I suspect this is because we don't grasp the sinfulness of Man in contrast to the holiness of God. We don't take Man and God at God's Word. Paul did, and salvation was a wonderful surprise from a vessel of wrath prepared for destruction to a vessel of mercy prepared for glory.