# Arminian exegesis of Romans 9



## steven-nemes (Jul 10, 2009)

They seem to think that Esau and Jacob refer to groups of persons, and same with Pharaoh, and so on.

Any arguments contra that?


----------



## SoliDeoGloria (Jul 10, 2009)

They do.
Reprobate and Elect.

At least I've always understood it that way.


----------



## Brian Withnell (Jul 10, 2009)

steven-nemes said:


> They seem to think that Esau and Jacob refer to groups of persons, and same with Pharaoh, and so on.
> 
> Any arguments contra that?



An analogy can only be used to identify the truth if the thing used is also true. You cannot use an analogy to support the opposite of what the original means.

So even if someone where to say that Romans 9 is an extended analogy (i.e., that the individuals named, with the parents as well) are analogous, to the reprobate and the elect, there is no doubt the originals (the individuals in this case) would have the same characteristics as the group to which it points. So it is when Paul says:



> And not only this, but there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac; for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, it was said to her, “The older will serve the younger.” Just as it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”



If Paul had in mind only the groups (which he certainly uses the individuals as an example of) then he certainly also stated it is true of the individuals that stand in place of the groups. There is no doubt of the meaning here ... and while I understand how someone could want this to say something other than it was true of these two individuals, the fact that this talks of Jacob and Esau in terms of both their mother, Rebekah, and father, Isaac, by name would be clear evidence that the individuals are envisioned. The issue is not if they stand in for groups, it is that Paul uses them as an example for the groups of people in the world.

The real clincher in this is his next two rhetorical questions/answers:



> What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth.” So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.



Here, the question only arises when someone asks if it is just that God would choose one and not the other. The answer is not that God saw who would do anything or who would repent or who would have faith. The answer is it does not depend on "the man who wills" (those that would want to repent, their will has nothing to do with it) "or the man who runs" (those that would do something ... even have faith) "but on God who has mercy".

The next reference is so powerful. If one reads the account in Exodus of what comes right before this quoted verse, you will find the action of God in choosing. It is clear that the account show "and Pharaoh hardened his heart" several times, but then it changes to "and God hardened Pharaoh's heart". Pharaoh was raised up for the purpose of God demonstrating his power. So when Paul says "So then he has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires" it is not without a specific example that God has shown not only in this passage, but in fact of history. Pharaoh was a vessel of wrath prepared for destruction.

If that were not enough, Paul anticipates the objection that would follow from fallen human thought that man is capable of repentance by himself.


> You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?”


Why does the question arise? It comes from the fact that Paul just said that it is God that chooses who will have mercy, and who will be hardened. If those who are hardened are hardened because God determined it, then a fallen creature would ask:

"So why is it their fault? You cannot blame them for having a hard heart if God is the one who hardened it in the first place! That's not fair!"

That might sound like a reasonable argument between two creatures. (It certainly wouldn't be fair for a king to order someone's hand to be tied to a rope that would hold 1000 lbs over a baby, then tell them if they don't hold the 1000 lbs. the man with the hand tied is responsible for killing the baby.) It is not sound when speaking of the creator/creature relationship. Paul's "answer" if you call it an answer, is to address the fallacy of even asking the question.


> On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, 'Why did you make me like this,' will it?


 The answer addresses the fact that man is a creature, and God is the creator. It is perfectly just and fair for the creator (God) of an object (man) to make that object whatever the creator chooses. Man is just an "uppity" object and with hubris challenges its creator. That is just wrong. A clay pigeon that is made to be destroyed cannot justly say to its creator "why did you make me a clay pigeon?" Neither can reprobate men justly say to God "why did you make me to demonstrate your justice?"

The problem is that men think too highly of themselves, and not highly enough of God. We don't have a problem with saying that a clay pigeon ought to be able to be made for the purpose of destruction. We see ourselves as being so much more than a clay pigeon. There is more metaphysical distance between God and us than there is between us and clay pigeons. We and clay pigeons are both the same from the standpoint of God ... clay pigeons and people are part of his creation. Mankind sees no problem with making clay into toilets. But we value ourselves as if we were equal with God. 

Our worth, and all of our worth, comes from what value God places on and in us. That we are made in God's image is our most certain value, but a self-portrait is still the property of the painter, and it is his choice what to do with it. If God makes billions of self-portraits, and chooses to destroy all of them, it is his choice and his property to do with as he sees fit. If from those billions he chooses to save one, the rest have no claim to demand they also be saved. They are still the property of the painter.

The issue of Arminianism would go away if people had a true view of their relationship to God. We show hubris when we think of ourselves as something other than what God has made. "It is he that has made us, and not we ourselves."


----------



## Poimen (Jul 10, 2009)

Yes a careful exegesis of the text indicates that they do in fact represent people groups. And even Pharaoh as an individual was responsible for much of the destruction of Egypt in the days of Moses. 

At the same we must recognize that though Paul begins Romans 9 by speaking about a corporate entity (his countrymen after the flesh) he also divides all men into two camps, elect and reprobate. Indeed his point is that even within Israel itself, i.e. one nation, there were elect and reprobate, just as God loved Jacob and hated Esau though both came from the line of Abraham. For not all Israel is of Israel (vs. 6). 

Furthermore we see that in vss. 15,16 & 18 9 (the crucial texts for sovereign grace) it is on the singular person, not plural, ( 'whomever' 'him' and 'whom') that God has mercy and likewise it is the singular person whom God hardens. Groups of persons aside, each group is made of individuals and thus they either receive mercy or justice which based upon God's sovereign decision or decree. 

We also must note that the exclusive 'group' identity the Arminian sees in Romans 9 puts him in a theological bind. He is forced to admit that God chose not to have favor upon some and chose to favor another. If not all are 'predestined' to have the gospel preach to them, it is clear, even in a limited way, that God did not decree to save all men (i.e. everyone without exception). Therefore he has restricted the atonement and God's love to certain people. So unless he wants to claim that God's decision here is based on works or merit of one group over another (which blatantly undermines the meaning of Romans 9:15-18) he is already well on his way to the Calvinist's understanding of 'particular grace': he just doesn't know it yet.


----------



## Brian Bosse (Jul 10, 2009)

Hello Steven,



Steven said:


> They seem to think that Esau and Jacob refer to groups of persons, and same with Pharaoh, and so on. Any arguments contra that?



I think the best argument "contra that" is it fails to answer the objection Paul is dealing with. The issue is not why some nations are chosen and others not; rather, Paul is arguing why so many Jews of God's "chosen people" have rejected Christ. The charge is that God's word regarding salvation has failed. Paul's answer is that an individual is not a true Jew just because he is physically born Jewish. The idea that God is speaking of nations in Paul's illustration of Jacob and Esau just does not fit the context at all.

Brian


----------



## Hebrew Student (Jul 10, 2009)

steven-nemes,



> They seem to think that Esau and Jacob refer to groups of persons, and same with Pharaoh, and so on.
> 
> Any arguments contra that?



Yes, it is not a very good argument. In the first place, one has to deal with Romans 9:1-5. In that context, Paul is weeping over his kinsmen "according to the flesh" [v.3]. If this is really supposed to be about nations, then why is it that Paul specifically speaks of his kinsmen according to the flesh, and says that he is weeping because of their rejection of the gospel?

Next, you have to deal with the problem Paul is addressing. In verses 4-5, Paul addresses the fact that these Jews are supposed to have the sonship, promises, service, etc. Now, one might postulate that, since these Jews have rejected the gospel, the word of God has failed. However, Paul emphatically denies this in verse 6. He instead says that not all of Israel is truly Israel.

That is the context into which the following discussion goes. To then argue that Jacob and Esau are simply being referred to as nations rather than individuals misses Paul's point. His point is not that nations are what are being predestined. Instead, by using those quotations about nations in this context, he is saying that, just as God can raise up nations for his purposes, he can also raise up individuals for his own purposes. God has the authority to do this from the nation right on down to the individual.

Now, about Pharoah, to say that this is referring to the nation of Egypt misses the whole context, not only of verses 1-6, but also of the quotation in verse 17. It comes from Exodus 9:13ff:



> Then the Lord said to Moses, "Get up early in the morning, and stand before Pharaoh, and say to him, "Thus says the Lord, the God of the Hebrews. 'Let my people go so that they might serve me. For this time, I am sending all my plagues to your heart, among your servants and among your people so that you will know that there is none like me in all the earth. For by now I could have stretched out my hand, and struck you and your people with pestelence, and you would have be hidden from the land. But for this reason I have caused you to stand, in order to show you my strength, and so that my name would be recounted in all the earth.



Notice how the very verse that was quoted here is spoken to a person who has a people! How can that be the nation of Egypt? Very clearly, from this text, the one who is told this is the person Pharoah, and not his people.

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## Sven (Jul 10, 2009)

I don't really see how Jacob and Esau being nations really helps the Arminian position at all. Instead of God just rejecting individuals He's now rejecting a whole group of people. Be that as it may. Israel and Esau though their seed became nations, Jacob and Esau were still individuals. God chose one and rejected the other.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Jul 10, 2009)

I'm sorry... you're going to have to back up there... 

You mean to tell me that Arminians actually do exegesis?


----------



## smhbbag (Jul 10, 2009)

You beat me by 3 minutes on that one, Ben. To move along the thread, just pretend it says "Arminian Eisegesis of Romans 9," then all is well.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Jul 10, 2009)

smhbbag said:


> To move along the thread, just pretend it says "Arminian Eisegesis of Romans 9," then all is well.



Whew! Thanks... the cerebral dissonance is settling.... I'm ok now.


----------



## ExGentibus (Jul 11, 2009)

SolaScriptura said:


> You mean to tell me that Arminians actually do exegesis?






steven-nemes said:


> They seem to think that Esau and Jacob refer to groups of persons, and same with Pharaoh, and so on.
> 
> Any arguments contra that?


They usually read Esau merely as the head of Edom, and Jacob as Israel. This way, they feel comfortable saying that the passage is not about individual election, but rather about corporate, conditional election. But of course the idea of the corporate election of a people of physical descendants from a patriarch is the very error Paul is addressing here. Indeed, verses 1-8 are the premise that refutes the false doctrine that only _the children of the flesh_ are children of God. He then uses the example of Jacob and Esau, real, historical men known to the readers, to show that only the children of the promise, by virtue of God's discriminating and sovereign election, are the true seed of Abraham.

Then, the objection at verse 19 "Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?" really makes no sense in the context of the corporate election contingent on obedience. If election is conditional, then God would find fault only in those who have not elected themselves, as a consequence of their disobedience, and there would be no need to object anything, and particularly to mention His irresistible will.

The problem with this kind of eisegesis is that it really takes a lot of patience to address all the errors involved, because it usually comes from a dispensational conception of God's redemptive plan for His _Israel_.


----------

