The most uncomfortable and difficult Bible verse
The most significant passage in the New Testament that concerns double predestination is found in Romans 9.
For this is the word of promise: “At this time I will come and Sarah shall have a son.” And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even by our father Isaac (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of him who calls), it was said to her, “The older shall serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.”
What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.”
So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “Even for this same purpose I have raised you up, that I might show My power in you, and that My name might be declared in all the earth.” Therefore He has mercy on whom he wills, and whom he wills He hardens (Romans 9:9-18).
In this passage, we have the clearest biblical expression we can find for the concept of double predestination. It is stated without reservation and without ambiguity. “Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.” Some people get mercy, others get justice. The decision for this is in the hand of God.
Paul illustrates the double character of predestination by his reference to Jacob and Esau. These two men were twin brothers. They were carried in the same womb at the same time. One received the blessing of God and one did not. One received a special portion of the love of God, the other did not. Esau was “hated” by God.
The divine hatred mentioned here is not an expression of an insidious attitude of malice. It is what David earlier called a “holy hatred” (Psalm 139:22). Divine hatred is not malicious. It involves withholding favour. God is “for” those whom he loves. He turns his face against those wicked people who are not the objects of his special redemptive favour. Those whom he loves receive his mercy. Those whom he “hates” receive his justice. Again, no one is treated unjustly.
Why did God choose Jacob and not Esau? Did God foresee in Jacob some righteous act that would justify this special favour? Did God look down the corridors of time and see Jacob making the right choice and Esau making the wrong choice?
If this is what the apostle intended to teach, it would not have been difficult to make the point clear. Here was Paul’s golden opportunity to teach a foreknowledge view of predestination, had he wanted to. It seems strange indeed that he does not take such an opportunity. But this is no argument from silence. Paul does not remain mute on the subject. He labours the opposite point. He emphasizes the fact that God’s decision was made before the birth of these twins and without a view to their future actions.
Paul’s phrase in verse 11 is crucial. “For the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls.” Why does the apostle say this? The accent here is clearly on the work of God. It emphatically denies that election is a result of the work of man, foreseen or otherwise. It is the purpose of God according to his election that is in view here.
If Paul meant that election is based on some foreknown human decision, why did he not say so? Instead, he declares that the decree was made before the children were born and before they had done any good or evil. Now we grant that a foreknowledge view of predestination realizes that the divine decree was made prior to birth. But that view insists that God’s decision was based on his knowledge of future choices. Why doesn’t Paul make that point here? All he says is that the decree was made before birth and before Jacob and Esau had done any good or evil.
We grant that in this passage Paul does not come right out and say that God’s decision was not based on their future good or evil. But he did not need to say that. The implication is clear in light of what he does say. He places the accent where it belongs, on the purpose of God and not on the work of man. The burden here is on those who want to add the crucial qualifying notion of foreseen choices. The Bible doesn’t add it here or anywhere.
The point is this: If Paul believed that God’s predestination was based on foreseen human choices, this was the context in which to spell it out.
We must go a step further. Though Paul is silent about the question of future choices here, he does not remain so. In verse 16 he makes it clear. “So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy.” This is the coup de grace to Arminianism and all other non-Reformed views of predestination. This is the Word of God that requires all Christians to cease and desist from views of predestination that make the ultimate decision for salvation rest in the will of man. The apostle declares: It is not of him who wills. The non-Reformed views must say that it is of him who wills. This is in violent contradiction to the teaching of Scripture. This one verse is absolutely fatal to Arminianism.
It is our duty to honour God. We must confess with the apostle that our election is not based on our wills but on the purposes of the will of God.
Paul raises two rhetorical questions in this passage that we must consider. The first is, “What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness in God?” Why does Paul anticipate this question? No one raises that question to an Arminian. If our election is ultimately based on human decisions, there is no need to raise such an objection.
It is to the biblical doctrine of predestination that this question is raised. It is to predestination based on God’s sovereign purpose, on his decision without a view to Jacob or Esau’s choices, that prompts the outcry, “God is not fair!” But the outcry is based on a superficial understanding of the matter. It is the protest of a fallen man complaining that God is not gracious enough.
How does Paul answer the question? He is not satisfied by merely saying, “No, there is no unrighteousness in God.” Rather, his answer is as emphatic as he can make it. He says, “Certainly not!” or “God forbid!” depending on the translation you are reading.
The second objection Paul anticipates is this: “You will say to me then, ‘Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?’” Again we wonder why the apostle anticipates this objection. This is another objection never raised against Arminianism. Non-Reformed views of predestination don’t have to worry about handling questions like this. God would obviously find fault with people whom he knew would not choose Christ. If the ultimate basis for salvation rests in the power of human choice, then the blame is easily fixed and Paul would not have to wrestle with this anticipated objection. But he wrestles with it because the biblical doctrine of predestination demands that he wrestle with it.
How does Paul answer this question? Let us examine his reply:
But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honour and the other for dishonour? What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He {pg 153} might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? (Romans 9:20-24).
This is a heavy answer to the question. I must confess that I struggle with it. My struggle, however, is not over whether the passage teaches double predestination. It clearly does that. My struggle is with the fact that this text supplies ammunition for the advocates of equal ultimacy. It sounds like God is actively making people sinners. But that is not required by the text. He does make vessels of wrath and vessels of honour from the same lump of clay. But if we look closely at the text we will see that the clay with which the potter works is “fallen” clay. One batch of clay receives mercy in order to become vessels of honour. That mercy presupposes a clay that is already guilty. Likewise, God must “endure” the vessels of wrath that are fit for destruction because they are guilty vessels of wrath.
Again the accent in this passage is on God’s sovereign purpose and not upon man’s free and good choices. The same assumptions are operating here that are operating in the first question.
Author Sproul, R. C.
