127

Three Generations of Election

Romans 9:7–12

Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” In other words, it is not the natural children who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring. For this is how the promise was stated: “At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son.”

Not only that, but Rebekah’s children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.”

I want to begin this study by saying that, in my judgment, we are now entering into the most difficult portion of the entire Bible, more difficult even than those very confusing sections in Daniel, Revelation, and other books that deal with prophecy. Romans 9–11 is concerned with election. But it is not this alone that makes these chapters difficult. What is really difficult is that these chapters, particularly chapter 9, also deal with the negative counterpart to election, the doctrine of reprobation (passing over of those who are not elected to salvation), and that they are written to prove that God is right in doing so.

The proper name for this kind of discussion is “theodicy.神义论” A theodicy is an attempt to vindicate the justice of God in his actions.

In this study we begin with the positive side of God’s actions: election, which is the easiest place to start. But already we can hear objections. Some objections are pragmatic专断人的: “Why are Reformed people always harping 反复唠叨on the doctrine of election?” We do not actually do this, of course; usually we speak of other doctrines. But election is so objectionable to most people that it sticks in their memories and makes them think that we are always talking about it.

A second class of objections is theological: “How can election be true? If election is true, free will is impossible, and we all know that we have free will.” Or, “If election is true, why should we evangelize?” Election and free will are not incompatible, as we have seen before in these studies and will see again. But an explanation of why they are not incompatible takes time, and most people are not willing to wait for the explanation.

Other objections are belligerent好斗的: “If election is true, God is not just. I could never believe in a God like that.” That, of course, is the question with which theodicy deals, and we will come to it.

A Basis in Fact

Where do we begin? I suggest that we begin exactly where the apostle begins in Romans, namely, with the fact of election itself. The reasons are obvious. First, there is no sense arguing over the justice of God in electing some to salvation and passing over others unless we are first convinced that he does. If we do not believe this, we will not waste our time puzzling over it. Second, if we are convinced that God elects to salvation, as Paul is going to insist he does, we will approach even the theodicy question differently. We will approach it to find understanding, rather than arrogantly trying to prove that God cannot do what the Bible clearly teaches.

To seek understanding is one thing. God encourages it. But to demand that God conform to our limited insights into what is just or right is another matter entirely.

So let me begin by saying that as long as we believe that God exercises any control over history or the lives of his people, then we must come to terms with election one way or another. It is inescapable.

Why? For this reason. When Jesus called his first disciples, he called twelve and not more. Others might very well have profited from having spent the following three years in close association with Jesus. But Jesus chose only twelve for this privilege. Moreover, when he sent his disciples into the world to tell others about him, by necessity each of these early preachers went in one direction rather than another. Philip went to Samaria. Barnabas went to Antioch. Later Paul and Barnabas went north to Asia Minor. Still later Paul and other companions went to Greece, then Italy, and eventually further west. In each case a choice was involved: north rather than south, west rather than east. If God was directing the movement of these servants of his at all, he was choosing that some should hear the gospel of grace rather than others, which is a form of election—even apart from the matter of a choice to call some to active faith by means of an internal call.

The same is true in our experience. If you believe that God is leading you to speak to someone about the gospel, it is an inescapable fact that you are speaking to that person rather than another. And even if a Christian friend should join you and speak to that other person, there are still millions who are inevitably passed by. Election is an inescapable fact of human history.

Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob

This is not the way Paul presents the doctrine, of course, though it is close enough to get us thinking along the right lines. What Paul does do is go back to the earliest moments in the history of the Jewish people, to the stories of the patriarchs—Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob—and show that election operated there. We remember, of course, that the apostle is trying to explain why not all Israel has been saved and why the fact that they have not been saved does not mean that God’s purpose or promises have failed. In the case of these three fathers of the nation, he is going to show that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob became what they were by election and that others were not granted this privilege.

1. Abraham. Election is obvious in the case of Abraham, which is one reason why Paul does not discuss his case in detail, though he does mention him. Abraham had a pagan ancestry, having been born in the ancient city of Ur in Mesopotamia. He had no knowledge of the true God, because no one in Ur had knowledge of the true God. In fact, Abraham’s family worshiped idols. Joshua said this explicitly in the sermon recorded in the twenty-fourth chapter of the book that bears his name: “This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: ‘Long ago your forefathers, including Terah the father of Abraham and Nahor, lived beyond the River and worshiped other gods’ ” (Josh. 24:2). Years later, even after God had called Abraham out of this pagan environment and had taught him and through him had instructed Abraham’s son and grandson about himself as the true God, idols were still possessed and cherished in this family, since Rachel, the wife of Jacob, hid them from her father when he came after them in the incident recorded in Genesis 31.

Abraham did not seek God. God sought Abraham.

Since the call of Abraham is recorded in Genesis 12, every Jew would have to confess that Jewish history began with that election.

2. Isaac. But those to whom Paul is writing might argue that this is beside the point, which is probably also why Paul does not deal with Abraham’s story at great length. They would admit that God had to start somewhere, after all. Besides, they might say, the matter being discussed is not whether God has elected the nation of Israel to some specific destiny apart from other nations. That much had been conceded by everyone. Paul himself has spoken of the adoption as sons, the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, and other privileges that were granted to Israel alone. No one disputed the election of the nation. The real issue was whether all the descendants of Abraham, that is, all Jews, were thereby saved, or whether the principle of choice and rejection also applies after the initial choice of Abraham.

In other words, does God continue to choose some but not all, some Jews and some Gentiles but not all from either category?

Since this is the issue, Paul begins his actual argument in verse 7 with the case of Abraham’s son Isaac. His argument reads: “Not because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, ‘It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.’ In other words, it is not the natural children who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring. For this was how the promise was stated: ‘At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son’ ” (vv. 7–9).

The point of this statement is that Abraham had another son. He had begotten Ishmael of Hagar, thirteen years before Isaac was born. Yet Ishmael was not chosen. He was Abraham’s physical descendant, but he was not a child of promise as Isaac was.

There is something else in this example: the contrast between “natural” in the phrase “natural children” and “children of the promise” (v. 8). That contrast, plus the quotation from Genesis 18:10, 14 in verse 9, shows that the difference between Isaac and Ishmael was not merely that God elected Isaac and passed over the other son, but also that the choice of God involved a supernatural intervention in the case of Isaac’s conception. Ishmael was born of Abraham’s natural powers. But Isaac was conceived when Abraham was past the age of engendering children and when Sarah was past the age of conceiving and giving birth.

It is the same with our spiritual conception and new birth, which is the inevitable outworking of God’s electing choice and is likewise supernatural. We cannot engender spiritual life in ourselves, for, according to Ephesians 2:1, we are spiritually dead. For us to become spiritually alive, God must do a miracle.

3. Jacob. Yet there is still an objection. Paul’s readers could argue that Ishmael was not a pure-blooded Jew. “It is true,” they might say, “that Ishmael was the son of Abraham. Yet he was not the son of Sarah. He was the son of Hagar, and Hagar was only Sarah’s servant. That is why Ishmael was not chosen.”

In order to answer this point, Paul passes to the third generation of election, to the case of Rebekah’s twin children, the sons Jacob and Esau. The words “not only that” in verse 10 show that he is continuing the argument. “Not only that, but Rebekah’s children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls—she was told, ‘The older will serve the younger’ ” (vv. 10–12).

This is a remarkably effective example, since it proves everything that Paul needed or wanted to make his point.

First, Jacob and Esau were born of the same Jewish parents. That is, each was “a Hebrew of the Hebrews,” the phrase Paul used to describe his own Jewish ancestry in Philippians 3:5. Each was a pure-blooded Jew. So there is no case of one having been chosen on the basis of a better ancestry and the other having been rejected on the basis of a lesser one. The supposed reason for the choice of Isaac over Ishmael is eliminated in the case of Jacob and Esau.

Second, the choice of Jacob rather than Esau went against the normal standards of primogeniture长子名份, according to which the elder should have received the greater blessing. True, the boys were twins. But Esau actually emerged from Rebekah’s womb first, though Jacob was chosen. There is nothing to explain this except God’s sovereign right to dispose of the destinies of human beings as he pleases, entirely apart from any rights thought to belong to us due to our age or other factors.

Third—and this is the most important point of all—the choice of Jacob instead of Esau was made before either child had opportunity to do either good or evil. It was made while the children were still in the womb. This means—we cannot miss it—that election is not on the basis of anything done by the individual chosen.

Moreover, the choice was made, at least in the case of Jacob, to teach the doctrine of election. That is what verses 11 and 12 say. “Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls … ” (emphasis added). This means that God made his choice before the birth of Rebekah’s sons to show that his choices are unrelated to anything a human being might or might not do. It is a case, as Paul will say just a few verses further on, that “God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy” (v. 18).

Individuals or Nations?

I am aware that at this point many will already be saying, “But that’s not fair. It is wrong for God to choose one and not another. To be fair, God has to give everyone a chance.” We are going to come back to that question later and answer it. We are going to show that not only is salvation by election fair, it is the only thing that is fair. Besides, it is the only chance we have. It is election or nothing.

But before we get to that, there is another matter.

I have been writing about three generations of election in the cases of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. But there are people who admit Paul’s teaching about election in these verses and yet regard it as the election of nations rather than of individuals. They say that it is an election of the Jewish nation only and that, if this is so, these verses have little, if anything, to say about election as it is commonly understood.

Is Romans 9 dealing with the election of Israel only? We need to think through the arguments carefully.

First, there are a few reasons to think that Paul is dealing with nations rather than individuals. For one thing, the Bible speaks elsewhere of Israel as an elect nation. So the idea of an election of a specific people to some predetermined destiny is not strange to Scripture.

Again, there is no question that the oracle spoken to Rebekah before the birth of Jacob and Esau did involve more than individuals. The Genesis 25:23 text says—though Paul does not quote this part, and the omission may itself be significant—that “two nations are in your womb, and two peoples from within you will be separated; one people will be stronger than the other …” (emphasis added). Later in Genesis a good bit of space is given to the nation that Esau founded, and the remainder is about Israel.

Again, it might be argued that Paul’s overall argument in Romans 9–11 concerns the future place of Israel in God’s plan. In fact, this is where he ends up: “And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: ‘The deliverer will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob. And this is my covenant with them when I take away their sins’ ” (Rom. 11:26–27, emphasis added).

Good arguments, and yet not sufficient. For, in spite of the fact that Paul’s overall argument in these chapters concerns the future of Israel as a nation, that is not the point he is making at the start of chapter 9. At this point he is distinguishing between individual Jews, some of whom have been elected to salvation and are therefore “true Israel,” in contrast to others who have not been and are therefore Israel by physical descent alone. These latter may be the natural children of Abraham, but they are not his spiritual children. They are not children of the promise.

Of the more recent commentators, it is John Murray who works through these arguments most carefully, concluding like this: “The thesis that Paul is dealing with the election of Israel collectively and applying the clause in question [that “God’s purpose in election might stand”] only to this feature of redemptive history would not meet the precise situation. The question posed for the apostle is: How can the covenant promise of God be regarded as inviolate when the mass of those who belong to Israel, who are comprised in the elect nation in terms of the Old Testament passages cited above (Deut. 4:37 et al.), have remained in unbelief and come short of the covenant passages? … Paul’s answer is not the collective election of Israel but rather ‘they are not all Israel, who are of Israel.’ And this means, in terms of the stage of discussion at which we have now arrived, ‘they are not all elect, who are of elect Israel.’ As we found above, there is the distinction between Israel and the true Israel, between children and true children, between the seed and the true seed. In such a distinction resides Paul’s answer to Israel’s unbelief.”

What does this mean?

It means that although the biblical doctrine of election does not exclude the choice of nations for specific purposes in history, the doctrine does nevertheless also and more fundamentally refer to the choice of individuals—and that it is on this basis alone, not on any supposed right of birth or by the doing of works, that a person is brought into the covenant of salvation.

Radical Depravity and Election

How could it be otherwise, if the condition of fallen humanity is as bad as the Bible declares it to be? When we were studying the third chapter of Romans we saw that Paul’s summary of the fall was expressed in these words:

There is no one righteous, not even one;

there is no one who understands,

no one who seeks God.

Romans 3:10–11

This is an expression of what Reformed thinkers refer to as total or radical depravity. It means that there is not a portion of our being that has not been ruined by sin. Sin pervades all our actions and darkens all our natural understanding, with the result that, rather than fleeing to God, who is our only reasonable object of worship and our only hope of blessing, we flee from him.

How could a creature as depraved as that possibly come to God unless God should first set his saving choice upon him, regenerate him, and then call him to faith? How could a sinner like that believe the gospel unless God should first determine that he or she should believe it and then actually enable him or her to believe?

Of course, that is exactly what God does. In fact, we have already seen this action explained at length in Romans 8, where Paul spoke of a five-step process involving foreknowledge (or election), predestination, calling, justification, and glorification. Those five terms describe the very essence of salvation, and the significant thing is that God is the author of each one. It is he who foreknows, he who predestines, he who calls, he who justifies, and he who glorifies.

The only thing Paul is adding in Romans 9 is that this is entirely apart from any supposed right of birth or good works. It is due entirely to the will and mercy of the sovereign God.

Do you still have questions about this? If you do, I am not surprised. I have questions myself. It is why I have called Romans 9–11 the most difficult portion of the Bible. I also have questions about the doctrine of the Trinity and other matters. But although I have questions, I nevertheless believe these doctrines and rejoice in them. I am suggesting that you do, too. Why? Because election means that salvation is of God. It is his idea and his work, and therefore it is as solid as God himself is.

If salvation were up to me, I would blow it. Even if I could choose God savingly, which I cannot, I would soon unchoose him and so fall away and be lost. But because God chooses me, I can know that I am secure because of his eternal and sovereign determination. God began this good work. And “he who began [this] good work … will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus” (Phil. 1:6).

Did you know that the doctrine of election was the chief factor in the conversion of Charles Haddon Spurgeon, the great Baptist preacher of the nineteenth century? Spurgeon believed it and was blessed by it, because he knew his own spiritual inability. Apart from election, he knew he would be lost. Be like him. The more you are, the more you will rejoice in election, however puzzling parts of it may be.