Principles of Divine Election

by M. Rudge (Wales)

PAPER 2

(9:14-18) “What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. …”

God’s right to confer upon Israel special privileges and a unique role in God’s purpose of redemption, at the expense of the Arab (Ishmael), and Edomite (Esau), nations, would have the complete approval of Paul’s opponents. But if they approved the principle of the Divine right to choose sovereignly in this instance, they could not repudiate it when it was turned against them. In order to be consistent, they must also respect the Divine right to set aside Israel and bring Gentiles into blessing. V14 may be paraphrased as saying, ‘There is no unrighteousness with God, is there?’.

It is at this stage in his refutation of the false charges of his opponents, that Paul applies the principles that he has established, to demonstrate the point at issue. He shows that God is not unrighteous in setting Israel aside as a nation and showing mercy to the Gentiles in the gospel. Even then, “at the present time, there is a remnant [of Israel], according to the election of grace,” 11.5. Paul himself, was one of the remnant.

In this second passage, Paul begins with a rhetorical question and applies the principles he has already established, to give additional proof that, “there is no unrighteousness with God is there?” — that is in the exercise of His sovereignty. Another two examples are used, and on this occasion, it is, (i) Israel, to whom He showed mercy, when they had forfeited every right to blessing, in the worship of the golden calf, and (ii) Pharaoh, who He endured with much longsuffering and then hardened judicially. God was “making known the riches of His glory” in the mercy He showed to Israel, and “willing to show His wrath, and to make His power known,” in the case of Pharaoh. “Therefore hath He mercy on whom He will have mercy and whom He will He hardeneth,” v18.

Paul’s opponents are bound to be in agreement with him, as long as he maintains the principles of Divine sovereignty in the election of Israel and those who are “of Israel” [the chosen people], v6b. But they fail to be consistent when they oppose the application of the same principles to Israel and the Gentiles. This is a common failing.

Divine principles can be welcomed and accepted until they are applied to a situation in which the persons concerned and/or their families are involved, and in a way that calls for adjustments to be made. It is then, that they are no longer acceptable.

This is a matter that accounts for much failure in obedience to the Word of God. A simple example of this would be the general agreement that all Scripture is Divinely-inspired and should be authoritative in the lives of Christians but when it comes to certain aspects of what the Scriptures teach quite plainly its authority is not owned. It is a very searching exercise at times, to decide whether we are guilty of this inconsistency, and calls for honesty, uprightness and transparency.

“What shall we say then? …”, v14, is a further use of this question or comparable language, where Paul questions his readers, to bring his teaching into perspective and challenge his opponents. See 3.1,3,9,27; 4.1; 6.1,15; 7.7; 8.31. He is saying, ‘there is no unrighteousness with God, is there?’ — that is in His dispensational dealings with Jew and Gentile?

It has already been noted that Paul is taking his argument a stage further and that, again, he uses two incidents. Examples have been given from the book of Genesis and are now given from the book of Exodus. In the first example, v15,16, God’s dealings with the nation of Israel, demonstrate His sovereignty in dispensing mercy. Sovereign mercy shown to Israel is irrefutable support for the rightness of God’s dealing in mercy with the Gentiles, ie to “whoever He will.”

On the occasion of the idolatrous worship of the golden calf, Israel forfeited any claim they might have appeared to have, of Divine blessing, and stood exposed to God’s wrath — “Let Me alone that My wrath may wax hot against them and that I may consume them ...”, Ex.32.10. Moses put the case for Israel to be spared, on the ground of what others would think if the nation God had brought out of Egypt was made extinct. But it was solely an act of sovereign mercy that saved the situation. The Divine prerogative to show mercy, was exercised, entirely apart from any external considerations, “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion …”, v15.

K. S. Wuest writes, “The first ‘I will’, is future indicative, predicting a future event and the second occurrence is present subjunctive, — not, on whoever I desire, or will to have mercy, but “on anyone, whoever he is, that I will show mercy to,” in the future.” This confirms even more emphatically, that God is absolute, sovereign and free, in the disposition of His mercy. “I will have mercy … I will have compassion …”, is the ‘I will’ of Divine sovereignty. It includes determination, selection and the appointment of those who are to be its objects. ‘Compassion’ is the inward feeling of pity and distress caused by the condition of others. We should note these features that characterise the exercise of God’s sovereignty. There is more to learn of these features as the chapter progresses.

If it is argued, and it is, that God knew and foresaw something in me and on that basis, He chose me as one of the elect, then it is not difficult to see the exposure of its fallacy in the example of Israel’s national history. The worship of the golden calf was the beginning of a long history of rebellion that culminated in the rejection of their Messiah. Israel could never have been chosen on the basis of what God knew they would turn out to be.

Israel is the people whom God “foreknew”, Rom.11.2, in the sense that He recognised them in a special way and included them in His purpose long before they came into existence as a nation. “You only have I known of all the families of the earth, therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities,” Amos 3.2; “I never knew you,” Matt.7.23; “who verily was fore-ordained [‘foreknown’] before the foundation of the world …”, 1Pet.1.20. Each of these Scriptures shows clearly that foreknowledge is much more than knowing beforehand. In His omniscience, God knew beforehand that the elect would come to faith in Christ and in His foreknowledge, He recognised them beforehand as His elect. But He did not choose them on that basis. That would mean that they chose themselves and make it obligatory that they were among the elect. It would rule out Divine choice altogether, as well as the truth that has been established — God’s sovereign choice in election.

God did not choose Israel, on the basis of what He foreknew [foresaw] in them, in the ordinary sense of the word. Their failure at Sinai in the matter of the golden calf was only the beginning of a history in which they were more like Ishmael, the son of the bondwoman and Esau, than the true “Israel of God”, Gal.6.16. See Gen.16.12 and 1Thess.2.15,16. It should also be noted that Israel under law are seen in figure as children of the bondwoman in Gal.4.21-31

Did God choose them on the basis of what he knew about their future? No. He chose them because He loved them with a sovereign love, quite independently of anything in them, that could have drawn out His love towards them See Deut.4.37; 7.8; 22.5; 33.9.

We cannot understand the Divine love shown to Israel and to ourselves but we believe that it is true, because it is the teaching of the Word of God.

“So then, it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy,” v16.

There are some obvious examples of this further application of Divine sovereignty in election, irrespectively of those who would have wished matters to be otherwise and also, those who misguidedly, sought to further what was God’s purpose, and which would have been fulfilled anyway. All such attempts to thwart or further Divine purpose in a carnal way failed and will always fail. In His sovereign power, God is perfectly capable of bringing about what He has purposed. The prophet Isaiah used this point to face the nation with the difference between Jehovah and the idol gods to which they had turned, Isa.41.1-4, 21-29.

It was on the occasion of the announcement that Isaac would be born “at this set time in the next year,” that Abraham laughed in unbelief and said, “O that Ishmael might live before Thee,” Gen.17.18. If it had been Abraham’s choice, the exercise of his will, then Ishmael would have been the chosen heir. In his old age, when his eyes were dim, Isaac sent Esau to the field, for the venison he loved and would have given him the blessing, before he died, Gen.27.1-4. Rebecca overheard what Isaac had said to Esau, and sent Jacob running to the flock to supplant him. In a somewhat different context, but similar in principle, Jacob overruled Joseph’s displeasure and blessed the younger son, Ephraim, when Joseph would have preferred Manasseh.

We can also think of the way in which Samuel “looked on Eliab, and said, Surely the Lord’s anointed is before Him,” and had to be told he was not, and again, to be told, “Neither hath the Lord chosen this,” in the case of each of the seven sons of Jesse, 1Sam.20.6-10. In His sovereignty, God overruled the misguided attempts to thwart His purpose and also the carnal attempts to further it in a way which did not have His approval.

Time and time again, God has shown His sovereignty in overruling and using means and methods which do not have His approval, and causing them to be a means of blessing or glorifying Himself in furthering His purpose, “that My name might be declared throughout all the earth.” See and compare Ex.17.3-7 and Num.20.2-13.

This important principle is not recognised, as it should be. All too often, it is numbers and apparent blessing that are the only criteria, by which it is thought that God’s blessing and approval are measured. But it is faithfulness to God, His Word and His Will, which will gain the Lord’s approval and reward at the Judgment Seat of Christ, Matt.24.45; 25:21, 23. We need to remember that it is not necessarily majority approval or the approval of the brethren that will be the decisive factor in the day of review. These are deep lessons concerning Divine sovereignty, which are seen elsewhere in Scripture.

—to be continued (D.V.)