by M. Rudge (Wales)
The example of Pharaoh shows more than his judicial hardening. It demonstrates the sovereign right of God in choosing to act in judgment and His sovereignty in raising a man to prominence in order to make His power known in him and “that My name might be declared throughout all the earth,” v17. At the end of a long drawn out period, during which God showed exceptional long-suffering, allowing Pharaoh to exercise his will and reject the call to “Let My people go,” God hardened his heart, judicially.
This example adds support for God’s right to judge. Compare v19 and 3.5,6. It is additional support for the rightness of God’s judgment, when applied to unbelieving Jews, who had hardened their hearts against the gospel.
God allowed the exercise of Pharaoh’s free will but held him responsible for what he did. This is the truth of individual responsibility and accountability, which acts as a balance to the truth of Divine sovereignty. These truths are invariably found alongside one another in Scripture, and are like parallel lines that run closely alongside one another and may appear to meet in the distance, but in fact never do.
“For the Scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might show My power in thee, and that My name might be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore hath He mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardeneth.” v17,18.
The order and sequence of events in God’s dealings with Pharaoh should be noted. In Ex.3.19, there is the first indication of Divine foreknowledge of the way events will develop, “And I am sure that the king of Egypt will not let you go ... ”; 4:21 gives notice of the outcome of Pharaoh’s resistance “but I will harden His heart …” God foresaw Pharaoh hardening his heart but He did not foreordain it.
The sequence of events in the book of Exodus, show Pharaoh’s responsibility for what happened, when he first, hardened his heart and then, when God hardened his heart. See 7.13 RV; 14,22,23; 8.15,32; 9.7,34,35. See also 1Sam6.6, “Wherefore then do ye harden your hearts, as the Egyptians and Pharaoh hardened their hearts? …” Hardening was judicial, the operation of Divine laws governing human conduct, and fully justified by his conduct. See 9.12; 10.1,20,27; 11.10; Isa.6.10; Matt.13.15; Jn.12.39,40; Acts 28.26-28.
(9:19-29) “Thou wilt say then unto me. Why doth He yet find fault? For who hath resisted His will? ... ”
Paul’s opponents now resort to the argument that if God is absolutely sovereign in human affairs, how can blame be attached to anyone? No one can resist His will. This is a specious argument that chooses to ignore everything that the apostle has so carefully and capably presented on the subject of Divine sovereignty. Paul refutes their irreverent reasoning by using the illustration of the power of the potter over the clay — absolute power to shape the future, within the limits of the Divine will. Puny, finite man's questioning God's dealings is comparable to the clay questioning the potter, “Nay but O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to Him that formed it, Why hast Thou made me thus?”, v 20,21. We should never question the dealings of God. He is always righteous and as we have seen, our understanding of the exercise of His sovereign will, must take into account other characteristics, v15.
The illustration of the potter, which is used as an example of the exercise of the absolute power of Divine sovereignty, in connection with the future destiny of men, must be understood in the context of what follows in v22-24. It does not mean that God determined beforehand that the “vessels of wrath,” should become “vessels of dishonour,” “fitted to destruction,” but that their destruction is determined by their response to God’s dealings with them. As we shall see in v22, they are vessels that are “[self]-fitted to destruction.”
Paul's final appeal is to the nature of God. The exercise of His sovereignty is inseparable from His nature. His holiness makes it imperative that He must punish sin and even then, it is His “strange work,” which He undertakes reluctantly. ‘Though His holy will would lead Him to show His wrath, yet He withheld His wrath and endured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath.’ (M. R. Vincent)
Paul asks the question, “What if God, willing to show His wrath and make His power known …?” What if the exercise of His will involves His acting in judgment? He is perfectly righteous in doing so, and especially after He has “endured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath …”, v22. Long-suffering and the endurance of man’s hardness of heart, are now added to other features which are displayed in the exercise of God’s sovereignty.
It is important to notice, here, that there is a distinction between “the vessels of wrath” [self] fitted to destruction, after being shown “much long-suffering” and “the vessels of mercy,” which God has “afore-prepared unto glory,” and where He makes known “the riches of His glory, even us, whom He hath called, not of the Jews only but also of the Gentiles,” v23,24. The immediate context and the difference in the language used here, show that the vessels of wrath fitted themselves for destruction. The vessels of mercy were “afore-prepared” by God but there is nothing comparable to this in the description of the vessels of wrath, “fitted to destruction.” Rom.2.4,5 and 1Thess.2.15,16 show clearly, that vessels of wrath bring judgment upon themselves. It is something that they choose rather than repenting and turning to God.
In v22-29, application is made to the situation of Israel and the Gentiles, and what has taken place is shown to be confirmed by Scripture.
At the close of v24, Paul writes of those “whom He hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles.” This recalls the earlier verses, “in Isaac shall thy seed be called,” v8; (… “that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of Him that calleth;)…”, v11.
Paul quotes from Hosea and Isaiah to support the principle of God calling a people, “My people,” who were not formerly His people (see 1Pet.2.10), and the partial calling of a remnant of Israel. Hosea is speaking initially of Israel and the salvation of a remnant when the nation returns to Divine favour in the future. Similarly, Isaiah “also crieth concerning Israel, … a remnant shall be saved: …” and “as Esaias said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma and been made like unto Gommorah.” i.e. completely extinct. The last two quotations are a further reminder of God’s sovereign mercy in saving a remnant and sparing a seed. Yet again, we read the magnificent “I will” of Divine sovereignty, “I will call them My people …”, v25.
And again, in a masterly way, Paul establishes the principle of Divine sovereignty in God’s dealings with Israel and then applies the same principle to His dealings with the Gentiles. In passing, we can note that both prophets learnt the truth of wider issues in their domestic life, Hos.1.2-11; Isa.7.3,4 [“Shear-jashub thy son,” ‘a remnant shall return’ marg.]; 8.18; 10.22). The classrooms in the school of God are the circumstances of daily life in which we can learn the truth which has a bearing upon wider issues.
It is instructive to notice that Paul speaks of “those whom He hath called …”, because God’s call in the gospel, is the means which He uses to give effect to His purpose. Cp 2Thes.2:13,14; 1Cor.1:2, 24-31; 1Pet.1:2. Response to God’s call, or its rejection, brings together yet again the truth of Divine sovereignty and human responsibility.
9.30-33, “What shall we say then? That the Gentiles which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith. But Israel … Wherefore? because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone; as it is written, Behold, I lay in Zion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on Him shall not be ashamed.”
The parallel truth of human responsibility is developed from v30, onward, The Gentiles “attained to righteousness,” the objective that Israel vainly sought by the works of the law. Israel “stumbled at the stumblingstone, …”, and were solely responsible for their unbelief. Faith is a matter of personal responsibility, the response to God’s working in such a way, that salvation by grace through faith, is presented as His gift. “For by grace ye are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God,” Eph.2.8.
The revelation of God’s purpose in His Word shows that in the matter of His sovereign choice in election, He has always acted consistently, and in strict conformity to the same principles. It has been seen that He has always disregarded natural descent, human merit or any other external considerations.
If the response to this is that God is acting arbitrarily [‘not bound by rules; dependent upon the discretion of an arbiter, judge or court (rather than upon a set law or statute); (of a ruler or power) despotic, absolute], then the answer must be that ‘God is God.’ He is not accountable to any, and always acts righteously, in keeping with His character, displaying those other characteristics, which we are delighted to notice in this chapter. Who could question a God who is what He is and acts in the way in which He does?
At the conclusion of our consideration of the principles of Divine election and human responsibility, we reach the point where we have to accept that they are both taught clearly in Scripture. In a way comparable to other truths that we cannot fully understand, we have to accept and believe them, as both being true of God’s dealings with men. What we must not do, is to attempt to make them logical and understandable in a human way, and to reconcile them.
We must recognise that God is infinite and that, whatever our intellectual capacity, we are puny creatures with finite minds. This is a matter that calls for humility. It is at this point that we become humble worshippers. We recall Job.33.13, “I will answer thee that God is greater than man. Why dost thou strive with Him? For He giveth not account of any of His matters.” Also Dan.4.34-36, “And at the end of the days, I, Nebuchadnezzar, … blessed the Most High, and I praised and honoured Him that liveth for ever, … all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and He doeth according to His will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay His hand or say unto Him, What doest Thou? At the same time, my reason returned unto me; …” Again, “I will publish the name of the Lord: Ascribe ye greatness to our God. He is the Rock, His work is perfect: For all His ways are judgment [‘righteousness, what is right, just.’ JND]: a God of truth and without iniquity, Just and right is He.” Deut.32.3,4.
Footnote. It is instructive to notice that in the book of Genesis, where the truth of election commences, the major part of the narrative deals with the chosen line and the other histories are minimal. This can be seen in the division of the book of Genesis into its ten sections, after the first four introductory chapters. Each of the divisions commences with similar wording.
F. E. Marsh said, “two things are prominent in the above fact, the men of the flesh, such as Ishmael and Esau, and their descendants, are summarised in fifty verses; while the men of faith and their seed, such as Terah, Isaac and Jacob, cover no less than over forty chapters. From this we may gather, that those who are to play only a minor part in the drama of human history, while they are recognised, they and theirs are dismissed with a few statements of fact; while those who are in the covenant of promise are prominent throughout.”
“Second, the undercurrent which runs through the strata of Genesis is, the men who are identified with the Promised Seed are to the front because of the Messiah with Whom they are associated. The others are in the formation of the human race, but the elect race is the foundation of the purpose of the Lord. Association with Christ makes all the difference whether we count or not.”
—concluded