Trinity Evangel Church

One of my favorite classes that I ever took as a student was a 16th century Reformation class at Milligan College my sophomore year (30 years ago this fall). We met once a week for three hours, I think it was on Thursday evenings. I started that semester in a 1/4" thick plastic brace that went from my neck to my pelvis due to a fractured vertebrae that the brace was intended to stabilize. The injury is significant to the story because I broke my back near the end of my freshman year while playing baseball for the Buffaloes, and when I went home for the summer, I couldn't work or do much of anything due to the pain and numbness.

I got a ridiculous brace, and all my friends got jobs. I was at home, and got so bored of watching VHS tapes of “Home Improvement” that in desperation I decided to...read a book. Tucked into some bookshelves full of English literature, my mom had a couple books that caught my eye: The Sovereignty of God by A. W. Pink, and The Five Points of Calvinisms: Defined, Defended, and Documented. I was in trouble the rest of the summer.

By the time I got back to Milligan I had learned about God's sovereignty in salvation. The doctrines of grace answered questions I'd had and it reinvigorated my biblical studies. I started talking to fellow students at Milligan, I soon after started a small Bible study of about six, and we went through verse after verse about man's sinfulness and God's election and Christ's atonement and the Spirit's regeneration and the hope of perseverance unto eternal life. Around campus I started getting labeled as a false teacher, a false prophet, David Koresh, and one girl called me the antichrist. Another acquaintance pleaded with me to stop this Bible study and, when I said I didn't think I would, he said a group of students were going to gather outside my room the following Friday night and pray that God would cast the devil out of my soul. I said, "Thanks! Because if the devil is in there, I don't want him to be!”

It was that same fall semester when I was taking the Reformation class. Dr. Craig Farmer was a graduate of the Duke Divinity school, and had I stayed at Milligan I'm sure I would have encountered difficulties with some of his beliefs. But he was a Calvinist on the down low. And after some weeks of reading Erasmus complaining about the Pope, we got to reading Erasmus complaining about predestination. We read On the Freedom of the Will (De Libero Arbitrio). But we read it in a copy that was followed by Martin Luther's On the Bondage of the Will (De Servo Arbitrio).

Erasmus presents a sympathetic position to how a lot of Christians feel today. Erasmus was especially concerned that some of these things shouldn't be put as a burden upon "lay" Christians, the regular, non-academic theologians. In the preface he writes:

For there are some secret places in the Holy Scriptures into which God has not wished us to penetrate more deeply…. (38). Moreover, some things there are of such a kind that, even if they were true, and might be known, it would not be proper to prostitute them before common ears. (40) Some things for this reason are harmful because they are not expedient, as wine for a fevered patient. Similarly, such matters might allowably have been treated in discussion in the learned world, or even in the theological schools, although I should not think even this to be expedient save with restraint. (41-42)

Erasmus was sure that it would lead to misunderstandings and misrepresentations of God, even to an increase of impiety among weak men as well as to division among believers. You could come in the house (of Scripture), but there were a lot of rooms that would be off limits unless you had special training, and even then, best to stay out.

Luther gave no quarter to Erasmus, and all the Reformers were driven to attack any who would keep God's Word from the people. Among many choice responses about why God’s Word is so good for us, Luther wrote:

For if I am ignorant of what, how far, and how much I can and may do in relation to God, it will be equally uncertain and unknown to me, what, how far, and how much God can and may do in me, although it is God who works everything in everyone (1 Corinthians 12:6). But when the works and power of God are unknown, I do not know God Himself, and God is unknown, I cannot worship, praise, thank, and serve God, since I do not know how much I ought to attribute to myself and how much to God. (117)

This makes Erasmus' plea, as virtuous and humble as he presents it, full of pride. Does God know what He revealed? Does God need us to edit what He's said, to protect His people from certain parts of His Word? By no means! Should we do our best to rightly handle the word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15)? Of course. Should teachers be careful because they are going to be judged with greater strictness (James 3:1)? Absolutely. Is refusing to read, teach, and exhort from, any part of inspired Scripture more honoring to God who spoke it (2 Timothy 3:16, 2 Peter 1:21)? By no means!

"What remedy then is there for the godly? Must they avoid every thought of predestination? By no means: for as the Holy Spirit has taught us nothing but what it behoves us to know, the knowledge of this would no doubt be useful, provided it be confined to the word of God." (—John Calvin, Commentary on Romans)_ 

I'm fine with nicknames that attempt to summarize what we find. I've often thought that it's a mercy that whoever acronym-ized the doctrines of grace gave us TULIP, a beautiful flower, rather than something such as BRICK or BLADE or BLUDGEON. Because we are talking about God's emphasis on mercy. He is sovereign over all, and all His attributes are infinitely excellent. But He reveals that some make others stand out more. His righteousness is His commitment to the glory of His name, and while we learn to fear Him for His forgiveness (Psalm 130:4), His forgiveness is that much more significant because of His omniscience (Psalm 130:3) and because He is holy, holy, holy (Isaiah 6:3).

So even in Romans 9, and especially in Romans 9:19-23, His righteous wrath makes His righteous mercy even more outstanding, and it is His mercy that we ought to marvel at most.

I've spent a long time getting back to the paragraph because it's fine to take a couple weeks to look at these truths. If you love them already, lingering probably doesn't frustrate. If you don't love them already, there are any number of reasons, including maybe having heard distorted accounts or not attending to the passage itself. We want to see what's here before we complain about all the other things.

Among those who've been around (and around and around) in these conversations about God’s sovereignty, there is a common, and commendable push back about how the greater scandal is not that God judges anyone but that God forgives anyone. And from one angle, that is true. None of us have ever not sinned. We all sinned in Adam, we all sin—as in we want, intend, and commit to disobey. We mean it when we do evil. We all deserve death. The rotten tree produces rotten fruit and is rightly identified by the fruit. If we got what we "deserved" there could be no justification. “Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous” (1 Peter 3:18), but that isn’t fair. We tend to minimize how much mercy was required in the blood of Christ so that God "might be just and justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus" (Romans 3:26).

In Romans 9 we certainly ought to be fired up about Isaac and Jacob and the elect-elect in Israel that got mercy. They weren’t entitled their election, the did not deserve God’s compassion or love.

But that is not the complaint Paul raises and responds to starting in verse 19.

You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” (Romans 9:19 ESV)

The problem is fault, the problem is "blame." The problem isn’t undeserved mercy, the problem here is (what looks like) undeserved judgment. Okay, fault for what?

The most recent character in context is Pharaoh, providing an example of those who God chose not to show mercy, after Ishmael and Esau. The final inference in verse 18 says that God "has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills." Is mercy unconditional and hardening conditional? Many commentators think so.

“His hardening always presupposes sin and is always part of the punishment of sin.” (Leon Morris)

“It must be borne in mind that Paul is not now dealing with God’s sovereign rights over men as men but over men as sinners. …[Sovereign hardenings] presupposes sin and ill-desert. It would be exegetically indefensible to abstract verse 21 and its teaching from these presupposed conditions.” (John Murray)

So this is a question of whether God is righteous to let sinners have more of the sin that they already have shown that they want?

But if we're dealing with God's response to unrighteousness than why would we ask how He finds fault? He found unrighteousness, that's how He found fault. If He finds fault first, then He finds a condition for hardening. When the motive condition is met in a man, God's motive is off the hook.

Isn't this partly why Paul didn't leave the Isaac over Ishmael example by itself? There was something obviously lesser about Ishmael. There was no difference between Jacob and Esau that we could see or that God was looking for according to human standards.

“If the difference had been based on works, Paul would have to no purpose mentioned this question respecting the unrighteousness of God, no suspicion could have been entertained concerning it if God dealt with every one according to his merit.” (John Calvin)

Of course we should be careful on this ground because God “neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin.” (Westminster Confession of Faith, 5:4) And James 1:13-14 make clear that God is not tempted with evil and tempts no one. But is He sovereign over sin and evil in any way? And if judgment/wrath is only based on man’s fault, what is the purpose of this paragraph?

Paul's answers, or at least his responses, come in the next verses. We are pots, and the Potter has all the power to make pots into what He wants (20-21). We are pots, and the Potter has ultimate purpose (22-23), which ultimately is to make known the riches of His glory for vessels of mercy. God did not spare His own Son but gave Him up for us that He could also graciously make us conquering sheep (Romans 8:32, 36-37).

Because God has a great purpose, He sent His Son to suffer and die for us. Because God has a great purpose, He calls you who have been given eternal life in Christ to come alongside one another and be a blessing to each other. The Potter has made you a vessel for honorable use, so live as a pot for His great purpose.

For God has not destined us for wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, who died for us so that whether we are awake or asleep we might live with him. Therefore encourage one another and build one another up, just as you are doing. (1 Thessalonians 5:9–11, ESV)

One of my favorite classes that I ever took as a student was a 16th century Reformation class at Milligan College my sophomore year (30 years ago this fall). We met once a week for three hours, I think it was on Thursday evenings. I started that semester in a 1/4" thick plastic brace that went from my neck to my pelvis due to a fractured vertebrae that the brace was intended to stabilize. The injury is significant to the story because I broke my back near the end of my freshman year while playing baseball for the Buffaloes, and when I went home for the summer, I couldn't work or do much of anything due to the pain and numbness.

I got a ridiculous brace, and all my friends got jobs. I was at home, and got so bored of watching VHS tapes of “Home Improvement” that in desperation I decided to...*read a book*. Tucked into some bookshelves full of English literature, my mom had a couple books that caught my eye: _The Sovereignty of God_ by A. W. Pink, and _The Five Points of Calvinisms: Defined, Defended, and Documented_. I was in trouble the rest of the summer.

By the time I got back to Milligan I had learned about God's sovereignty in salvation. The doctrines of grace answered questions I'd had and it reinvigorated my biblical studies. I started talking to fellow students at Milligan, I soon after started a small Bible study of about six, and we went through verse after verse about man's sinfulness and God's election and Christ's atonement and the Spirit's regeneration and the hope of perseverance unto eternal life. Around campus I started getting labeled as a false teacher, a false prophet, David Koresh, and one girl called me the antichrist. Another acquaintance pleaded with me to stop this Bible study and, when I said I didn't think I would, he said a group of students were going to gather outside my room the following Friday night and pray that God would cast the devil out of my soul. I said, "Thanks! Because if the devil is in there, I don't want him to be!”

It was that same fall semester when I was taking the Reformation class. Dr. Craig Farmer was a graduate of the Duke Divinity school, and had I stayed at Milligan I'm sure I would have encountered difficulties with some of his beliefs. But he was a Calvinist on the down low. And after some weeks of reading Erasmus complaining about the Pope, we got to reading Erasmus complaining about predestination. We read _On the Freedom of the Will_ (*De Libero Arbitrio*). But we read it in a copy that was followed by Martin Luther's _On the Bondage of the Will_ (*De Servo Arbitrio*).

Erasmus presents a sympathetic position to how a lot of Christians feel today. Erasmus was especially concerned that some of these things shouldn't be put as a burden upon "lay" Christians, the regular, non-academic theologians. In the preface he writes:

> For there are some secret places in the Holy Scriptures into which God has not wished us to penetrate more deeply…. (38). Moreover, some things there are of such a kind that, even if they were true, and might be known, it would not be proper to prostitute them before common ears. (40) Some things for this reason are harmful because they are not expedient, as wine for a fevered patient. Similarly, such matters might allowably have been treated in discussion in the learned world, or even in the theological schools, although I should not think even this to be expedient save with restraint. (41-42)

Erasmus was sure that it would lead to misunderstandings and misrepresentations of God, even to an increase of impiety among weak men as well as to division among believers. You could come in the house (of Scripture), but there were a lot of rooms that would be off limits unless you had special training, and even then, best to stay out.

Luther gave no quarter to Erasmus, and all the Reformers were driven to attack any who would keep God's Word from the people. Among many choice responses about why God’s Word is so good for us, Luther wrote:

> For if I am ignorant of what, how far, and how much I can and may do in relation to God, it will be equally uncertain and unknown to me, what, how far, and how much God can and may do in me, although it is God who works everything in everyone (1 Corinthians 12:6). But when the works and power of God are unknown, I do not know God Himself, and God is unknown, I cannot worship, praise, thank, and serve God, since I do not know how much I ought to attribute to myself and how much to God. (117)

This makes Erasmus' plea, as virtuous and humble as he presents it, full of pride. Does God know what He revealed? Does God need us to edit what He's said, to protect His people from certain parts of His Word? By no means! Should we do our best to rightly handle the word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15)? Of course. Should teachers be careful because they are going to be judged with greater strictness (James 3:1)? Absolutely. Is refusing to read, teach, and exhort from, any part of inspired Scripture more honoring to God who spoke it (2 Timothy 3:16, 2 Peter 1:21)? By no means!

> "What remedy then is there for the godly? Must they avoid every thought of predestination? By no means: for as the Holy Spirit has taught us nothing but what it behoves us to know, the knowledge of this would no doubt be useful, provided it be confined to the word of God." (—John Calvin, _Commentary on Romans_)_ 

We want to read the Word, preach the Word, receive and believe the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:27).

I'm fine with nicknames that attempt to summarize what we find. I've often thought that it's a mercy that whoever acronym-ized the doctrines of grace gave us TULIP, a beautiful flower, rather than something such as BRICK or BLADE or BLUDGEON. Because we are talking about God's emphasis on *mercy*. He is sovereign over all, and all His attributes are infinitely excellent. But He reveals that some make others stand out more. His righteousness is His commitment to the glory of His name, and while we learn to fear Him for His forgiveness (Psalm 130:4), His forgiveness is that much more significant because of His omniscience (Psalm 130:3) and because He is holy, holy, holy (Isaiah 6:3).

So even in Romans 9, and especially in Romans 9:19-23, His righteous wrath makes His righteous mercy even more outstanding, and it is His mercy that we ought to marvel at most.

I've spent a long time getting back to the paragraph because it's fine to take a couple weeks to look at these truths. If you love them already, lingering probably doesn't frustrate. If you don't love them already, there are any number of reasons, including maybe having heard distorted accounts or not attending to the passage itself. We want to see what's here before we complain about all the other things.

# Question: How is God fair? (verse 19)

Among those who've been around (and around and around) in these conversations about God’s sovereignty, there is a common, and commendable push back about how the greater scandal is not that God judges anyone but that God forgives anyone. And from one angle, that is true. None of us have ever not sinned. We all sinned in Adam, we all sin—as in we want, intend, and commit to disobey. We *mean it* when we do evil. We all deserve death. The rotten tree produces rotten fruit and is rightly identified by the fruit. If we got what we "deserved" there could be no justification. “Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous” (1 Peter 3:18), but that isn’t *fair*. We tend to minimize how much mercy was required in the blood of Christ so that God "might be just and justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus" (Romans 3:26).

In Romans 9 we certainly ought to be fired up about Isaac and Jacob and the elect-elect in Israel that got mercy. They weren’t entitled their election, the did not deserve God’s compassion or love.

*But* that is *not* the complaint Paul raises and responds to starting in verse 19.

> You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” (Romans 9:19 ESV)

The problem is **fault**, the problem is "blame." The problem isn’t undeserved mercy, the problem here is (what looks like) undeserved judgment. Okay, fault *for what*?

The most recent character in context is Pharaoh, providing an example of those who God chose not to show mercy, after Ishmael and Esau. The final inference in verse 18 says that God "has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills." Is mercy unconditional and hardening conditional? Many commentators think so.

> “His hardening always presupposes sin and is always part of the punishment of sin.” (Leon Morris)

> “It must be borne in mind that Paul is not now dealing with God’s sovereign rights over men as men but over men as sinners. …[Sovereign hardenings] presupposes sin and ill-desert. It would be exegetically indefensible to abstract verse 21 and its teaching from these presupposed conditions.” (John Murray)

So this is a question of whether God is righteous to let sinners have more of the sin that they already have shown that they want?

But if we're dealing with God's response to unrighteousness than why would we ask how He finds fault? He found unrighteousness, that's how He found fault. If He finds fault first, then He finds a condition for hardening. When the motive condition is met in a man, God's motive is off the hook.

Isn't this partly why Paul didn't leave the Isaac over Ishmael example by itself? There was something obviously lesser about Ishmael. There was no difference between Jacob and Esau that we could see *or that God was looking for* according to human standards.

> “If the difference had been based on works, Paul would have to no purpose mentioned this question respecting the unrighteousness of God, no suspicion could have been entertained concerning it if God dealt with every one according to his merit.” (John Calvin)

Of course we should be careful on this ground because God “neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin.” (Westminster Confession of Faith, 5:4) And James 1:13-14 make clear that God is not tempted with evil and tempts no one. But is He sovereign over sin and evil in any way? And if judgment/wrath is *only* based on man’s fault, what is the purpose of this paragraph?

# Conclusion

Paul's answers, or at least his responses, come in the next verses. We are pots, and the Potter has all the power to make pots into what He wants (20-21). We are pots, and the Potter has ultimate purpose (22-23), which ultimately is to make known the riches of His glory for vessels of mercy. God did not spare His own Son but gave Him up for us that He could also graciously make us conquering sheep (Romans 8:32, 36-37).

----------

## Charge

Because God has a great purpose, He sent His Son to suffer and die for us. Because God has a great purpose, He calls you who have been given eternal life in Christ to come alongside one another and be a blessing to each other. The Potter has made you a vessel for honorable use, so live as a pot for His great purpose.

## Benediction:

> For God has not destined us for wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, who died for us so that whether we are awake or asleep we might live with him. Therefore encourage one another and build one another up, just as you are doing. (1 Thessalonians 5:9–11, ESV)

Automated transcript of the sermon audio, generated with OpenAI Whisper (small.en). It has not been checked against the recording and may contain errors, especially in names and Scripture references.

Let's pray first. Father, we thank you for another day of glorious worship of you. We thank you for your word in Romans this morning that we heard. We thank you for your sovereignty. We thank you that you have made yourself known in general revelation by creating us. Help us to understand that. Help us to understand how to properly explain who you are to people that don't know you. And yet, I hope that as we study these things tonight, that you'll see that everyone knows there's a God. And those that want to reject you just suppress that truth. But they know. So help us to be good students of your word today. And help me to be able to speak the right things.

OK. Proverbs is something that we elders this year going through, and it's kind of unusual that I chose a subject to use. Not really though, and people have chosen money and that kind of thing. But I thought it would be interesting to try to show a certain branch of apologetics is taught in Proverbs. Proverbs, generally speaking explains man's relationship to God, man's relationship to himself, and man's relationship to others. Those are the categories that almost every proverb fit under. The ones that we're going to look at tonight in Proverbs are the ones that are relationship to God and His truth. First off, if some of you have never heard about apologetics or never heard the thing, we can read the verse in 1 Peter 3, 14 through 16 that says, but even if you should suffer for righteousness' sake, you will be blessed.

Have no fear of them, nor be troubled. But in your hearts, regard Christ as Lord, as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks for a reason for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience so that when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame." The whole issue of apologetics comes out of that make a defense. It's the Greek word apologia. It's to reckon, to think it through, to make that defense in a reasoned way. And so that's where apologetics comes from. There are three schools of apologetics that are used out there.

There's the classical school of apologetics, and that's this definition. These definitions, they're a little bit long, but the eggheads that created these definitions up, you just got to live with them and try to boil it down to what they're saying, OK? So classical apologetics is a method of apologetics that begins by first employing various theistic arguments to establish the existence of God. Classical apologists will often utilize various forms of the cosmological, teleological, that's on design, ontological, and moral arguments to prove God's existence. Once God's existence has been established, the classical apologists will then move on to present evidence from the fulfilled prophecy, historical reliability of scripture, and then the bodily resurrection of Jesus to distinguish Christianity from all other creating forms of theism.

So they first start off with this approach really brought to you by the Renaissance of all these arguments built on Plato and that kind of thinking. And then you bring that all to think that, oh, well, of course there's a God, and now let me tell you about him. But you notice that in the middle there, once God's existence has been established, the classical apologists then will move on to present evidence from fulfilled prophecy and the historical reliability of Scripture. So then, after they get you to go, well, okay, there's a God, then they have to go to scripture. And people will say, well, that's just a dumb old book.

I don't know about that. Then you have a school of evidentialists. And classical apologetics and evidential apologetics, most of the time, get shuffled together in a nice little pile. And evidential apologetics is a method of Christian apologetics that emphasizes positive evidences in favor of the truth of Christianity. The distinctive feature of evidential apologetics is its one-step approach to establishing Christian theism. Evidentialists will utilize evidence and arguments from several areas, including archaeology, fulfilled messianic prophecy, and especially from miracles. Again, what does that relate to? It relates to scripture.

In the distinction from classical apologetics, the evidential apologist believes that the occurrence of miracles act as evidence of God's very existence. In this way, the evidential apologist does not believe that the philosophical and scientific arguments for God's existence must logically precede arguments from miracles to establish biblical Christianity. However, the evidential apologist is not opposed to use the natural theology to confirm God's existence. These arguments are important weapons and the arsenal of the evidentialists as they helped to undergird the case from Christianity by giving further confirmation that God exists and has created and designed our universe.

Evidentialists simply do not believe such arguments must be presented prior to moving on to evidence from miracles. In this way, the evidential apologists can argue for theism and Christian theism at the same time without having first to establish God's existence. Such an approach can be beneficial in personal evangelism, where time is at a minimum. The Christian philosopher, Norman Geisler, summarized the difference between classical and evidential apologetics in this way. If people are into this subject, you've probably watched debates with Geisler and R.C. Sproul, other guys, the Indian guy that kind of fell off the wagon.

He was big in this kind of stuff. Yeah, Zacharone, right. So you watch these people and you realize, oh, these people, they're arguing all these things and they need to know all this stuff. And oh my goodness, I gotta study all this stuff to be able to present it. But Geisler kind of sums it up, I think, in a good way. The difference between the classical apologists and the evidentialists on the use of historical evidence is that the classical see the need to first establish that this is a theistic universe. The basic argument of the classical apologists is that it makes no sense to speak about the resurrection as an act of God, unless, as a logical prerequisite, it is first established that there is a God who can act.

That's the Baker Encyclopedia of the Christian Apologetics. Now, those are two schools that probably most of you, if you didn't know the name for them, you watch people do it, or you've heard them talk about that. The school that I want to speak about is presuppositional apologetics. This was brought about by Cornelius Van Tyl, a theological instructor at Westminster back in the early part of the 20th century and on through the middle part. He wrote a lot of books that are not easy to understand. And Greg Bonsen wrote this book, Always Ready. He's probably the best student of Van Til and certainly has done a lot of tapes and a lot of writing, I think, to make it much clearer than what Van Til did himself.

But this school of thought has come into a lot of acceptance by theologians, I think, that really want the Bible to be the source. And here's their attempt at explaining how they see it. Pre-suppositional apologetics is that belief that takes precedence over another, therefore serves as a criterion for another. That belief takes precedence over another and therefore serves as the criterion for another. In other words, our belief judges all the rest. An ultimate presupposition is a belief over which no other takes precedence. For a Christian, the content of Scripture must serve as his ultimate presupposition. This doctrine is merely the outworking of the lordship of the Christian God in the area of human thought.

It merely applies the doctrine of scriptural infallibility to the realm of knowing. That's why I like it. It's nice and simple. And you'll see that as we start constructing this, well, duh, if there is a God and he created it, you know, well, that's the way it works. So the purpose of this talk is to exhibit the presuppositional apologetics as the only faithful and sound method of contending for the Christian hope and biblical mesti, resting on the authority of the living God rather than that of independent human reasoning. The apologists must presuppose the truth of the scripture and lay siege to all apostate presuppositions.

This must be his method because the word of God in the Bible has a unique epistemological status for the Christian. It requires no corroboration and carries its own evidence inherently or self-attesting, as God makes total demand on the lives of his covenant people that they recognize the words of scripture and are logically the most ultimate authority. So if our apologetic is to be Christian apologetic, it must be presuppositional in character and method. Now, I'm gonna start quoting the Bible, and as you listen to these verses, think of the big thing. The first thing is God created it, and we'll see quickly, as we saw this morning in Romans 1, that all men know there's a God, and what they do with that information is the critical effort to them.

They either accept it and worship him, or they suppress it. Van Til summarized this. If anybody's tried to read a Van Til book, and this is the one thing that in a lot of the websites of presuppositional apologetic people, this is the one quote that they love. Van Til summarized the main drive of his apologetic by saying, the only proof for the existence of God is that without God, you couldn't prove anything. So our classical Christian education is interesting. In the books that Doug Wilson has written about classical Christian schooling, he shows that you really can't know that two and two is four until you understand the basics that God is the one that created these systems that we're examining.

The unbeliever can get a right answer to the math problem, but he really doesn't understand the structure in which the math problem was made. He denies that and creates his own structure out there. So the first verse that I wanna read, and it's not in Proverbs, we'll get to Proverbs, Genesis 1.1, in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth, okay? If that's true, that's a pretty big statement, right? Right off the bat, the Bible claims God made it all and there you go. So if he made it, he must know how he wants it to run and the rest of it. Then we move on into the New Testament with the Romans 1, 16 through 23 that we saw this morning.

And the great thing here is that Paul, remember that Paul was a great theologian, a Jewish theologian. He was a priest and all of that. and he persecuted those Christians, you know, that he thought they were enemies of God, but he understood the primary importance of what the Bible said. So he's coming from an Old Testament expertise knowing that by reading that, he could write Romans 1, 16 through 23. So, for I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For it is in the righteousness of God as revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, the righteous shall live by faith.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them because God has shown it to them for his invisible attributes, namely his eternal power and divine nature have been clearly perceived ever since the creation of the world and the things that have been made so that they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles."

That's a really damning statement. Claiming to be wise, they became fools because they knew God and yet they did not honor him. I use that verse all the time with people that, you know, playing pool as I do with various no accounts. A lot of them are atheists and they tell me these things and I say, well who made all this? And oh, you're going to use that trick on me. And I said, well you say there is no God, don't you think something bigger than you made this? Most people will actually go, yeah, okay, I'll give you that, maybe something bigger than me made it. Well at that point, all that's happened is that guy just doesn't know his name.

He's admitted something way bigger than him made it, so now he needs to know his name. And then I go on the track that, well, maybe this guy wrote a book and told you about how he did this and how you're supposed to act to him. Oh, now you're going to tell me the Bible. And I said, exactly. I said, I've got you to that point. Do you want to, you know, look at that? It's interesting. It usually stops the argument. But again, the argument, yes, I want to get them saved, but I also don't want to give them some glowing message And they go, oh, all I got to do is believe. Well, I'll believe. Those are the kind of guys that get planted in the shallow soil.

You want somebody that understands what the source is, and then he may not understand all those things, but he knows where to go to find the source. So other verses in the New Testament that show these kind of things, it's 1 Corinthians 1, 20, where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

Colossians 2, one through 10, for I want you to know how great a struggle I have for you and for those in Laodicea, for all of those who have not seen me face to face, that their hearts may be encouraged, being knit together in love, to reach all the riches of full assurance of understanding and the knowledge of God's mystery, which is in Christ, whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. I say this in order that no one may delude you with plausible arguments for though I am absent in the body yet I am with you in spirit rejoicing to see your good order and the firmness of your faith in Christ. Therefore as you receive Christ Jesus as Lord so walk in him rooted and built up in him established in faith just as as you are taught abounding in thanksgiving, see to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.

For in him, the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, and you have been filled in him who is the head of all rule and authority. There is a great article, and for those of you that are in the school, about Christian philosophy that Doug Wilson wrote, and it shows in that article, I think Doug does a good thing of balancing out. Yes, you can have these philosophical thoughts, but unless you're basing it in a true Christian foundation, you are really just following the traditions of man, and it's a dangerous subject. You can read a lot of Christian philosophers and scratch your head and wonder if they're saved, okay?

First Timothy 6.20 through 21 says, "'O Timothy, guard the deposit entrusted to you. "'Avoid the irreverent battle "'and the contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge. "'For by professing it, some have swerved from the faith. "'Grace be with you.'" So those are New Testament warnings. Now I want to just go back to the basic thing of what does the Bible say, how do I grammatically and historically read this and understand what it's saying, and how that applies to what I believe how Proverbs teaches presuppositionally. You must accept God's word, and then you go from there. So the first one that comes up is Proverbs 1.7, right in the front.

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge. Fools despise wisdom and instruction. Okay, the fear of the Lord. A lot of you have heard great Baptist sermons about how that is reverential awe. No, it isn't. You fear the Lord. And Matthew 10, 28, and Jesus' words tell you, and do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. rather fear him, and in the ESV, they didn't capitalize the H, they should have, capital H, him, who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

You either believe or you get to go to hell. That's, you should be afraid. That's afraid. Fear the Lord. That's the beginning of knowledge. Now, in case you didn't get it, I have one page, two, it's one and a half pages of Proverbs that say this over and over and over. I mean, it's amazing if you read your chapter of Proverbs a day for a month and read it for a couple months, pretty soon you're going to know, wow, this says it's a lot, probably important. So then it moves from 1.7 to 1.22. How long, those simple ones, will you love being simple? How long will scoffers delight in their scoffers, scoffing, and fools hate knowledge?

Proverbs 1, 29, 31. Because they hated knowledge, they did not choose the fear of the Lord. Would have none of my counsel and despise all my reproof. Therefore they shall eat the fruit of their way and have their fill of their own devices. Not a good thing. You will not do well. Proverbs 3 5 trust in the Lord with all your heart and do not lean on your own understanding a positive statement in the right way Proverbs 4 23 keep your heart with all vigilance For from it flow the springs of life Proverbs 5 1 & 2 my son be attentive to my wisdom incline your ear to my understanding So that you may keep discretion and your lips may guard knowledge Proverbs 8 5, O simple ones, learn prudence, O fools, learn sense.

Proverbs 9 10, the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. That sounds familiar. And the knowledge of the Holy One is insight. Where do you get that knowledge? You get it out of scripture. Proverbs 10 8, the wisest of the heart will receive the commandments, but a babbling fool will come to ruin. 1018. The one who conceals hatred has lying lips and whoever utters slander is a fool. Proverbs 12 23 a prudent man conceals knowledge but the heart of fools proclaims folly. In everything there Proverbs 13 16 in everything the prudent acts with knowledge but a fool flaunts his folly. It's just over and over, Proverbs 13-19.

A desire fulfilled is sweet to the soul, but to turn away from evil is an abomination to fools. To turn away from evil is an abomination to fools. Do we have a bunch of people that are wallowing in evil today, marching for abortion, for death? Even the people that are for abortion, The same ones realize what they're doing. They understand it, and yet they revel in it. Proverbs 14.7, leave the presence of a fool, for there you do not meet the words of knowledge. 14.16, one who is wise is cautious and turns away from evil, but a fool is reckless and careless. Proverbs 15.12, a scoffer does not like to be reproved.

He will not go to the wise. Proverbs 15, 14, the heart of him who has understanding seeks knowledge, but the mouth of fools feed on folly. Proverbs 15, 32, whoever ignores instruction despises himself, but he who listens to reproof gains intelligence. Proverbs 15, 33, the fear of the Lord is instruction and wisdom, and humility comes before honor. Proverbs 1710, a rebuker goes deeper into a man's understanding than a hundred blows into a fool. Proverbs 1712, let a man meet a she-bear robbed of her cubs rather than a fool in his folly. Why should a fool have money in his hand to buy wisdom when he has no sense? Proverbs 1760. That one makes me think of all the money being spent to send your children to high level schools that can no longer decide what a man or a woman is. Let's spend $80,000 a year to send my kid to Harvard so he can learn that. Well, I can't tell that.

Proverbs 1724, the discerning sets its face towards wisdom, but the eyes of a fool are on the ends of the earth. Proverbs 1728, even a fool who keeps silent is considered wise when he closes his lips he is deemed intelligent. Proverbs 18 2, a fool takes no pleasure in understanding but only in expressing his opinion. Proverbs 18 7, a fool's mouth is his ruin and his lips are a snare to his soul. Proverbs 19 1, better is a poor person who walks in his integrity than one who is crooked in speech and is a fool. Proverbs 24 9, the devising of folly is sin and the scoffer is an abomination to mankind. Proverbs 28 26, whoever trusts in his own mind as a fool but he who walks in wisdom will be delivered. Proverbs 29 11 a fool gives full vent to his spirit but a wise man quietly holds it back. All of those proverbs were taken in this part of the book the scriptural reference and back in the back the part on proverbs all of those are this first column and it all goes to a three-page chapter in this

book that, let me see, I've got to get to the right page. The foolishness of unbelief, three pages that are, I think, really skillfully done where Bonson shows through these references you're just foolish. I mean God just flat calls people that think they're hanging on on their own wisdom, fools. So what kind of basis do you have listening to them spouting off all their philosophies of oh, I really think this, and oh, well I understand, you know, cosmic forces and all of that, and we were, you know, made in the puddle and all of that kind of stuff. And it's just, when you really back away and look at it, well obviously, we don't know, but something bigger than us made this.

And then once you understand, okay, who is this force? General revelation shows it's God. Then God himself writes a book to us. And as you study that book, you realize the supernatural nature of the book and you start going, oh my goodness, look at how that book relates to that book. And even though all these different authors wrote it, It all weaves together in one magnificent statement.

These are things that as you go on and on, all these things become even more, I think, apparent to you. The other one is God is sovereign. That's a big hangup when you're witnessing to people. Well, I can't mean, you know, I'm not gonna worship this mean God that would send somebody to hell or do whatever. And the problem is, the first thing is, If this guy made all this and made me, and then people show me a verse that he knew me before the foundation of the world, before I was ever made, he knew that these kind of things should put you on your knees and thank God that he's allowing you to have at least those recognitions of it.

I think he will honor that, that, OK, I get it.

your God help me out help me understand this and he will help you I do believe that God is sovereign Proverbs 16 for the Lord has made everything for his purpose even the wicked for the day of trouble that's not the day of trouble day of evil okay the Lord has made everything for its purpose even the wicked for the day of evil Proverbs 16 33 the lot is cast into the lap but it's every decision is from the Lord. We played some crazy game last night with the Hovlands and we had to throw dice so we could, I don't know, we got cards or something that we could get boundaries and built little towns and stuff, but every stupid toss of the dice he knows, you know, much less your next breath or you know, then I was gonna pound the pulpit here or whatever. So those Proverbs are brought up and if he's sovereign like that and he declares himself like this this all comes together that Obviously you have to presuppositionally He's God this is his revelation This is the foundation of truth and if you don't want to talk about that really got nothing else to tell you

Now going to somebody that's never heard that before I do think you have to be patient and you do have to keep explaining it and if God is touching that person Lots of them will go. Oh, wow You can get them to admitting there's something bigger than them that made all this in a hurry Now you've told them you're lying to me when you said you were an atheist at least now you're an agnostic You don't know his name, but you know something bigger than you did all this so now I can teach you his name So anyway, then we move another sovereign proverb is Proverbs 22, the rich and the poor meet together. The Lord is the maker of them all.

Everybody, whether it's Bill Gates or the bum on the street, he made them all. Then the other thing that happens and is declared by by Proverbs is the absolute truth of what's being displayed in the Bible.

Proverbs 22, 17 through 21, incline your ear and hear the words of the wise and apply your heart to my knowledge, for it will be pleasant if you keep them within you, if all of them are ready on your lips, that you trust, that your trust may be in the Lord. I have made them known to you today even to you have I not written for you 30 sayings of counsel and knowledge to make you know what is right and true that you may give the true answer to those who sent you." Solomon is you know setting it up this is why these things were written to you and they're coming from God you know because you can read the whole thing. The last part of this is it's the whole chapter of Proverbs 26. Now some of you might have gone, okay how did he prove that presuppositional apologetics is taught through Proverbs? Right? So the basic thing is, is that we're saying the source of information is God's Word, period. And without filtering everything you do through this, you're not getting any kind of truth whatsoever. And that's why some

of you that are being introduced to classical Christian schooling, notice that we have the classical model, but then the label of Christian gets laid in there that we need to view this with our biblical spectacles. We need to put it through that grid. Now, learning Latin is not necessarily a Bible thing, but learning grammar and understanding language so that I can read something and I can diagram a sentence and understand the meanings of words and the structure of language God gave us language. We are unique creatures and that we can sit around and listen to each other talk like this and actually convey things that I'm thinking in my head.

I can convey that to you and you can have this idea. That's crazy when you think about it, that that can be just conveyed by talking. What a gift. And to be able to think about those abstract thoughts and be able to relay that to somebody else and to discuss that in the abstract and yet be absolutely concrete. We don't suck our next breath of air, we fall over and die. So all of that, though, puts us back to the thing that God's in charge. He's the one that controls it all. He's the one that does that. So that's what this all does. It boils down the sovereignty of God.

That's why I believe that this has been brought to the forefront in this day and age through Calvinistic-type theologians, because Calvin was the kind of main dude who put out God is sovereign. I mean all the five points of Calvinism are just nothing more than points of God's sovereignty. He's in charge of this, he's in charge of that, he's in charge of you, and you know as soon as you really buy into that you realize well of course he is, he made it all, he made the system. I'm part of this system because I am a creature in the system so I need to act correctly toward the person who made the system, God himself, and God reveals himself through his word, so we need to just farm everything through that.

That's why it takes years and why every Sunday, we come and we listen. And the great thing to the Christian life is, you'll get to a certain point and you'll go, man, I'm glad I understand that. And then a week comes later and you read another verse Or another slant, and you go, oh, I never realized that facet of the diamond. Oh, wow. Now I see a whole different thing. Then you go along and, you know, bam, never saw that before. These are the same words I've been reading for years, and now I see that. Well, that's God peeling the blinders off like Saul. You know, you fall off the horse and get rid of the blindness, and hey, look what you can find out.

So the last chapter here where this is working out perfect. I was only going to try to speak for like 30 minutes, 35 minutes, and by the time I read this, that would be it. But here's the main thing. I think this is so obvious that it's not really even worth debating. And when I listen to people debate it, it's interesting. And it's good mental gymnastics. It's kind of like our speech meets or our rhetoric classes that you learn how to rebut the horns, grasp the horns like Sean was saying. And to learn how to argue the other side is good mental gymnastics. But when it all gets said and done, do I really need to get over here and argue that I can't tell a man from a woman?

I mean, is that clever if I can make that argument? Or what good is that kind of thing, you know? So it's bottom line, we should want to know God. And when you know God, he opens your eyes and makes all of this a whole different look. For those of us that are believers, I mean, that's why I think getting together every week in our liturgy, we come to know him together and privately each time we meet because we're all interacting in our own heads, but all together we're interacting and then we come to communion, which I believe has a supernatural aspect to it. We are celebrating, you know, these elements that represent these things, but anybody that listens to us sing knows there's something much bigger going on than just having some little bread and some wine or grape juice and thinking, oh, now I've done my duty and done this symbolism.

And I think that churches that don't do that really miss a huge point in their Christian worship. And I think in the Reformed tradition, most of our Presbyterian brothers do have communion every week and that sort of thing, and that's why we have adopted it. And I think it really does change us. And a couple times here, watching us sing and hearing that, that's a lot of hearts welded together, thanking the Lord for what he has done for us, which is the proper place of worship. So the interesting thing, too, is that when you listen to the debates of other apologists or clever arguments about, you know, the Grand Canyon is old and that kind of stuff.

Those things are good, but I think John MacArthur had one of the best quotes I've ever heard about apologetics is he was asked in one of his question and answers and after he wrote the MacArthur Study Bible, he'd get up there and he said, I'm not sure how I answered that first and he'd open his Study Bible and look and say, okay, that's how I think about that. But some people asked him about, what about apologetics and evidences, like the Grand Canyon and that kind of stuff? And he said, you know what? He said, I've come to realize in my life that all of those answers in Genesis and all those things, they're great.

They're good studies and very interesting. But he says, what they really do is they just strengthen your Christian faith. You just see, oh, there is an answer for that. But that particular answer is not really the whole grasping of what God is and what he lives in you. They're interesting arguments. But when you try to argue with unbelievers about those things, you'll find that the argument goes, okay, you proved that to me, but what about this? And what about that? And what about this? And you just go on and on and on. It's a big universe. And they just keep asking those kinds of questions. So, you know, if you wanna do that for the rest of your life, good luck.

I mean, it can be interesting for your faith to prove that out, but you usually are not convincing somebody else by making those kind of arguments. You have to get right down to the heart issue. You're rejecting the very thing that made you. That's the thing, and that's why I think that the presupposition that God is God, you're not, and you need to pay attention to him is critical in apologetics. And this book, I think, is really good at it. And it's interesting how God had this guy die at like 47. He had a heart condition. And he made Van Til's writing, I think, understandable. He gets a little out there, too.

I mean, he can give you a headache reading some of his paragraphs. But he's much more on ground than a lot of these guys are. But they're all, the presuppositions are trying to say, the bottom line is God is God, you're not, and you know, get in line. So, Proverbs is just one thing after another. All the little discussions are don't be stupid, do this. Look at the ant, God created the ant. He did this, he did that, duh. Learn from that, watch this, don't do that. You know, if you do this, you're gonna get hurt. So then in Proverbs 26, it goes on and on.

It's kind of like reading all those things about the fool, but it's interesting when you start thinking about the way that it greets creation and realizing, okay, if God created creation, look at the kind of things that it's saying. Like in verse one, this is Proverbs 26. Like snow in summer or rain in harvest, So honor is not fitting for a fool. Like a sparrow in its flitting, like a swallow in its flying, a curse that is causeless does not alight." Interesting, right? If you don't have anything to land it on, doesn't do it. A whip for the horse, a bridle for the donkey, and a rod for the back of fools. Answer not a fool, according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself.

There are times with don't be stupid with a question like that. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes. Whoever sends a message by the hand of a fool cuts off his own feet and drinks violence. Like a lame man's legs which hang useless is a proverb in the mouth of fools. That's brutal. Like one who binds the stone in a sling, not a good idea, writes so the rock in the sling and then slinging around fling it and whack. Not good, don't do that. Is one who gives honor to a fool. Like a thorn that goes up in the hand of a drunkard is a proverb in the mouth of fools. Like an archer who wounds everyone is one who hires a passing fool or a drunkard. Like a dog that returns to his vomit is a fool who repeats his following. Do you see a man who is wise in his own eyes?

There is more hope for a fool than him." That's the danger, too, in really getting good at your studies. That can be a danger. You get to thinking, I am pretty clever. I can make all these arguments. I can solve these logic problems. I can show you this and show you that. At that time, you need to kind of back it up, sit down, and realize you're just a creature made by God who has blessed you by allowing you to see certain truths, but don't let that fill you up or you're going to get whacked. He's got a way of bringing you right back down. Let's see. Do you see a man who is wise in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than him. The sluggard says, there is a lion in the road. There is a lion in the streets. As the door turns on its hinges, so does the sluggard on his bed.

The sluggard buries his hand in the dish, it wears him out to bring it back to his mouth. The sluggard is wiser in his own eyes than seven men who can answer sensibly. Whoever meddles in a quarrel, not his own, is like one who takes a passing dog by the ears. One of the great portraits of Lyndon Johnson was him holding his beagle dog by the ears and David Levine a great cartoonist had his shirt pick up as he's holding the dog up it his shirt pops out of his pants and shows his scar of his gallbladder apro operation in the shape of Vietnam and he's holding the dog by the ears exposing that scar I think That was a great idea of that.

Let's see. Whoever meddles in a coral not as own as like one who takes a dog by the ears. Like a madman who throws firebrands, arrows, and death is the man who deceives his neighbor and says, I'm only joking. For lack of wood, the fire goes out and there's no whisperer quarreling ceases. As charcoal to hot embers wood to fire, so is the quarrelsome man for kindling strike. The words of a whisperer are the delicious morsels. They go down like the inner parts of the body, like the glaze covering an earthen vessel, our fervent lips with an evil heart. Whoo, that's harsh. Especially when we get to the pot and the potter, right?

That we're the pottery, not the potter who made it. Whoever hates and disguises himself with his lips and harbors deceit in his heart, when he speaks graciously, believe him not, For there are seven abominations to the heart. Though his hatred be covered with deception, his wickedness will be exposed in the assembly. Whoever digs a pit will fall into it, and a stone will come back on him who starts it rolling. A lying tongue hates its victims, and a flattering mouth works ruined." All right, bottom line, if you don't take anything else, God created all of this. We who believe in him have chosen the correct path in Romans 1.

We don't deny there's a God. We are worshiping that God. And God is a jealous and all-consuming God. He wants that worship. His whole thing is to bring himself glory. Westminster Confession, bottom line. It's all here for his glory. We are those instruments that he uses to bring him that glory. And each one of us, I think if we think it through and understand he's the creator, we're the creature, your life will go well. And just simply, that's the best way to do it. So let's pray and we're done for tonight, huh? Father, I thank you for your word. I thank you for men that have studied it. I thank you for the people that have read it when they only had the Old Testament to read back before Jesus and all these wisdom sayings and all these things are there over and over and over in the Old Testament.

And then we get the blessing of having your son come to give us that special path. But those people had the path too. They believed in you and looked forward to that blessing that you would bring Christ. So help us understand that, help us to see the wisdom from all these writings, help us to honor them, and help us to be good servants of yours in this crazy world we live in. And we thank you for all these things, and of course we thank you most of all for your son Jesus, and it's in his name we pray, amen.

In my Rhetoric class we recently hit a part of the curriculum talking about dilemmas. A dilemma (proper) is not just a problem, it’s when you’re given two really unsatisfactory options, when both choices are bad. These dilemmas are often of the moral kind, and there are some famous ones (e.g., the trolley dilemma).

When responding to dilemmas there are a few different approaches. Maybe you’ve heard these phrases before. You can grasp the horns, go between the horns, or rebut the horns. To grasp the horns means to reject one or both of the options as false. To go between the horns means to provide a third option. To rebut the horns is most fun, because it’s flipping the argument on its head.

Romans 9:14 presents a dilemma, and it’s especially tricky because it’s about God’s nature. Of course wumans don’t get to judge God. To think we can judge God is a judgment on ourselves. The Lord is God. He makes the standards; we have to borrow His standards to complain about Him.

But Paul had been around. His career started as one who killed people who he thought to be wrong about God. He murdered in the name of the Lord. He also wasn’t afraid to mix it up with dangerous arguments, and he’s gotten to a point in Romans 9 where questions are coming pretty fast after each other related to God’s nature.

With the Holy Spirit’s push, Paul lets the argument ride, for a bit. God said He would save Israel, many Israelites weren’t saved, is God unfaithful? Part of the answer is that some of Israel aren’t Israel (9:6). There is an elect within the elect, and He’s always faithful to them. So how are the elect (individuals) within the elect (nation) elected? God chooses on His own, without reference to anything He sees in a man (9:11). Does that make God unjust?

This is framed as a dilemma. If God elects freely—not based on anything in a person, then God is unrighteous. If God is not unrighteous, then His election must be based on something in a person and He isn’t free to show mercy to whomever He wants. So God either shows mercy righteously or freely.

But Paul says, the fact that He elects freely is His righteousness. Paul rebuts the horns, he flips the argument around. If God does not elect freely then He is not electing righteously. Unconditional election is His righteous glory revealed. Sovereign mercy belongs with His excellencies (1 Peter 2:10-11)!

Romans 9:14-18 pushes forward for our faith and hope and worship (and still one more step to come in 9:19-23). It builds our understanding of God’s Word and sovereignty, His mercy and His wrath. It shows us the foundation of His grace and His work in history. It gives us a reason to sing even if we are like sheep led to the slaughter.

It doesn’t seem that Paul is simply dealing with a possible misunderstanding or disagreement, as if he’d spent time talking to people after preaching this sermon before. He is doing that, but the setup and the Scripture quotes and the conclusions he makes are about God’s modus operandi, the way the Lord is and the way He works for the way we ought to know Him. These are His regular and excellent ways.

What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! We’ve heard this already; “What shall we say?” is a question in Romans 3:5 and 6:1, and it’ll come back again in 9:30. There is something that people say, so much so that it’s an anticipated response.

The charge is that if God elects like this, meaning, if He elects one twin but not another, and if He elects before they were born, without any reference to their good or bad, and if He elects without any regard for their religious parentage, then how can God be righteous? For eight chapters we’ve been hearing about righteousness, God’s perfect righteousness and our lack of any righteousness and how He will count us righteous based on Christ’s righteousness if we believe. Is it possible after all this that God is ἀδικία, the one with injustice?

“Absolutely not!” (NET). “God forbid.” (KJV) “May it never be!” (NASB). “Not at all.” (NIV). By no means!! This is a formula (the negated optative - μὴ γένοιτο) that denies not just the future, but denies the possibility. That’s the answer to the question. But there are two “for”s and each one has it’s own “so then.”

Here is the first way Paul shows that we can know that God is righteous because He chooses. For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”

The quote comes from Exodus 33:19. We looked at the context of this reference last week. Moses petitions the LORD to go with the people of Israel from Mt. Sinai up to the Promised Land, and when the LORD agrees, Moses asks to see the Lord’s glory (Exodus 33:18). Paul quotes the second half of verse 19, which begins, “I will make all my goodness pass before you and will proclaim before you my name, ‘The LORD.’ And I will have mercy….”

What it means to be God, what His name communicates, what makes Him excellent/glorious, what reveals His goodness, is God’s self-determining mercy. When God exercises this authority He is doing nothing other than being Godly. If He were not to exercise His Godliness, then He would be giving glory to something else less glorious than Himself. That is what would be unrighteous.

Compare this with the revelation of God’s wrath in Romans 1:18 where unrighteousness is mentioned twice, and unrighteousness is connected to ungodliness and to the suppression of truth about God Himself. Righteousness is less about checking obedience/disobedience boxes and more to do with a commitment to recognizing and proclaiming God’s excellencies.

In verse 16 Paul reiterates the same point of verses 6-13. So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. The “depend” part is assumed in translation; we’re talking about how it is decided who gets mercy. It’s not because anyone wants it, it’s not because they do something to chase it, let alone catch it. There’s nothing internal or external to a man that makes the difference. Election is unconditional. Those who are not accursed and cut off from Christ (see 9:3) but given a share of His presence and blessings, are freely loved by God who has mercy.

“[N]o cause higher than His own will can be thought of.” (John Calvin)

In 9:6-13 there were not just the positives, Isaac and Jacob, but also Ishmael and Esau. In particular, God said “The older will serve the younger” (Genesis 25:23) and that had scriptural support, “As it is written (in Malachi 1:2-3), ‘Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.’”

Okay, maybe we can come to terms with unconditional election to salvation if we remember that everyone already starts off in sin, no one deserves mercy, so sure, God doesn’t elect based off of good works (whew! since no one does good anyway, Romans 3:10, 12). But certainly God only shows wrath on those who deserve it, right?

Yes, the wrath of God is revealed against the unrighteous (Romans 1:18). The judgment of God falls on those who practice disobedience (Romans 2:2). “He will render to each one according to his works…for the who obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury” (Romans 2:6, 8). Men deserve death as the wages of their sin (Romans 6:23).

But there is more. In Romans 9 we read that Jacob wasn’t “loved” because of “good” and Esau wasn’t “hated” because of “bad.” There was God’s righteousness in sovereign mercy (Jacob, and “whoever” verses 15-16) and so also in sovereign hardening (Esau, and Pharaoh and “whomever,” verses 17-18). The last part of the paragraph goes out of its way to include the opposite of God’s self-determining mercy.

For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”

Paul quotes from Exodus as the Lord prepares the seventh plague of hail (with three more plagues after that). And it’s also interesting that right before Exodus 9:16 the Lord through Moses told Pharaoh that the only reason Pharaoh and the Egyptians weren’t dead yet is that He had spared them. But the sparing was to set them up for greater judgment. The Lord was getting more glory by enabling the Egyptians to treat His people more unfairly.

Paul makes the inference, the therefore: So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. Pharaoh was not a one-off.

A few more things.

First, Paul is rebutting the dilemma, not denying a premise. God does love/hate and save/harden apart from works. This is negative election, or what is called Reprobation. They are “vessels of wrath prepared for destruction” (9:22). If election is under-appreciated by so many professing Christians, reprobation is downright reprehensible to them.

Second, Paul anticipates the next push back in the next verse: “You will say to me then, ‘Why does He still find fault? For who can resist His will?’” If men were judged and hardened only because they deserved it, there would be no reason for this question, and we’ll see Paul’s answer to it in verses 20-23.

Third, this isn’t a denial of man’s, or Pharaoh’s, responsibility for their sin. But Paul’s point here is about God’s freedom to act.

For all the people that like to point out when Exodus describes Pharaoh as hardening his own heart, it’s more than a matter of counting how many times God hardened vs. Pharaoh hardened. God told Moses what He was going to do to Pharaoh (Exodus 4:21). God tells Pharaoh what He was going to do through Pharaoh (Exodus 9:16). It wasn’t God’s response, it was God’s purpose of election “in order to make known the riches of His glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—“ (9:23).

“Great is the Lord and greatly to be praised, and His greatness is unsearchable” (Psalm 145:3). His mercy is infinitely excellent. His justice is infinitely excellent. His righteousness, as in His commitment to showing off His infinitely excellent glory, is perfect. He is not a grand-father figure sitting in His chair giving pats on the head to those who don’t give Him grief.

So there is no dilemma for God. Freedom to show mercy is God’s glory, goodness, and name (see Exodus 33:18-19). His purpose of election stands (Romans 9:11) and it belongs with His outstanding excellencies.

His mercies are new every morning, and His excellencies are majestic for eternity. Live from faith to faith in His righteousness. He is committed to His glory, which means He is committed to showing His mercies to and through you. His mercies are able.

Now to him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you blameless before the presence of his glory with great joy, to the only God, our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen. (Jude 1:24–25, ESV)

In my Rhetoric class we recently hit a part of the curriculum talking about dilemmas. A dilemma (proper) is not just a problem, it’s when you’re given two really unsatisfactory options, when both choices are bad. These dilemmas are often of the moral kind, and there are some famous ones (e.g., the [trolley dilemma](https://theconversation.com/the-trolley-dilemma-would-you-kill-one-person-to-save-five-57111)).

When responding to dilemmas there are a few different approaches. Maybe you’ve heard these phrases before. You can grasp the horns, go between the horns, or rebut the horns. To grasp the horns means to reject one or both of the options as false. To go between the horns means to provide a third option. To rebut the horns is most fun, because it’s flipping the argument on its head.

Romans 9:14 presents a dilemma, and it’s especially tricky because it’s about God’s nature. Of course wumans don’t get to judge God. To think we can judge God is a judgment on ourselves. The Lord is God. He makes the standards; we have to borrow His standards to complain about Him.

But Paul had been around. His career started as one who killed people who he thought to be wrong about God. He murdered in the name of the Lord. He also wasn’t afraid to mix it up with dangerous arguments, and he’s gotten to a point in Romans 9 where questions are coming pretty fast after each other related to God’s nature.

With the Holy Spirit’s push, Paul lets the argument ride, for a bit. God said He would save Israel, many Israelites weren’t saved, is God unfaithful? Part of the answer is that some of Israel aren’t Israel (9:6). There is an elect within the elect, and He’s always faithful to them. So how are the elect (individuals) within the elect (nation) elected? God chooses on His own, without reference to anything He sees in a man (9:11). Does that make God unjust?

This is framed as a dilemma. If God elects freely—not based on anything in a person, then God is unrighteous. If God is not unrighteous, then His election must be based on something in a person and He isn’t free to show mercy to whomever He wants. So *God either shows mercy righteously or freely.*

But Paul says, the fact that He elects freely *is* His righteousness. Paul rebuts the horns, he flips the argument around. If God does not elect freely then He is not electing righteously. Unconditional election is His righteous glory revealed. Sovereign mercy belongs with His excellencies (1 Peter 2:10-11)!

Romans 9:14-18 pushes forward for our faith and hope and worship (and still one more step to come in 9:19-23). It builds our understanding of God’s Word and sovereignty, His mercy and His wrath. It shows us the foundation of His grace and His work in history. It gives us a reason to sing even if we are like sheep led to the slaughter.

# Question: Is God’s free election unrighteous? (verse 14)

It doesn’t seem that Paul is simply dealing with a possible misunderstanding or disagreement, as if he’d spent time talking to people after preaching this sermon before. He is doing that, but the setup and the Scripture quotes and the conclusions he makes are about God’s *modus operandi*, the way the Lord is and the way He works for the way we ought to know Him. These are His *regular and excellent* ways.

**What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means!** We’ve heard this already; “What shall we say?” is a question in Romans 3:5 and 6:1, and it’ll come back again in 9:30. There *is* something that people say, so much so that it’s an anticipated response.

The charge is that if God elects like this, meaning, if He elects one twin but not another, and if He elects before they were born, without any reference to their good or bad, and if He elects without any regard for their religious parentage, then *how can God be righteous?* For eight chapters we’ve been hearing about righteousness, God’s perfect righteousness and our lack of any righteousness and how He will count us righteous based on Christ’s righteousness if we believe. Is it possible after all this that God is ἀδικία, the one with injustice?

“Absolutely not!” (NET). “God forbid.” (KJV) “May it never be!” (NASB). “Not at all.” (NIV). **By no means!!** This is a formula (the negated optative - μὴ γένοιτο) that denies not just the future, but denies the possibility. That’s the answer to the question. But there are two “for”s and each one has it’s own “so then.”

# Explanation: Free Mercy is God’s Righteousness (verses 15-16)

Here is the first way Paul shows that we can know that God is righteous *because* He chooses. **For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”**

The quote comes from Exodus 33:19. We looked at the context of this reference last week. Moses petitions the LORD to go with the people of Israel from Mt. Sinai up to the Promised Land, and when the LORD agrees, Moses asks to see the Lord’s glory (Exodus 33:18). Paul quotes the second half of verse 19, which begins, “I will make all my goodness pass before you and will proclaim before you my name, ‘The LORD.’ And I will have mercy….”

What it means to be God, what His name communicates, what makes Him excellent/glorious, what reveals His goodness, is God’s self-determining mercy. When God exercises this authority He is doing nothing other than being Godly. If He were *not* to exercise His Godliness, then He would be giving glory to something else less glorious than Himself. *That* is what would be unrighteous.

Compare this with the revelation of God’s wrath in Romans 1:18 where *unrighteousness* is mentioned twice, and unrighteousness is connected to ungodliness and to the suppression of truth about God Himself. Righteousness is less about checking obedience/disobedience boxes and more to do with a commitment to recognizing and proclaiming God’s excellencies.

In verse 16 Paul reiterates the same point of verses 6-13. **So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.** The “depend” part is assumed in translation; we’re talking about how it is decided who gets mercy. It’s not because anyone wants it, it’s not because they do something to chase it, let alone catch it. There’s nothing internal or external to a man that makes the difference. Election is *unconditional*. Those who are not accursed and cut off from Christ (see 9:3) but given a share of His presence and blessings, are freely loved by God who has mercy.

> “[N]o cause higher than His own will can be thought of.” (John Calvin)

# Explanation: Free Hardening is God’s Righteousness (verses 17-18)

In 9:6-13 there were not just the positives, Isaac and Jacob, but also Ishmael and Esau. In particular, God said “The older will serve the younger” (Genesis 25:23) and that had scriptural support, “As it is written (in Malachi 1:2-3), ‘Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.’”

Okay, maybe we can come to terms with unconditional election to salvation if we remember that everyone already starts off in sin, no one deserves mercy, so sure, God doesn’t elect based off of good works (whew! since no one does good anyway, Romans 3:10, 12). But certainly God only shows wrath on those who deserve it, right?

Yes, the wrath of God is revealed against the unrighteous (Romans 1:18). The judgment of God falls on those who practice disobedience (Romans 2:2). “He will render to each one according to his works…for the who obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury” (Romans 2:6, 8). Men deserve death as the wages of their sin (Romans 6:23).

But there is more. In Romans 9 we read that Jacob wasn’t “loved” because of “good” and Esau wasn’t “hated” because of “bad.” There was God’s righteousness in sovereign mercy (Jacob, and “whoever” verses 15-16) and so also in sovereign hardening (Esau, and Pharaoh and “whomever,” verses 17-18). The last part of the paragraph goes out of its way to include the opposite of God’s self-determining mercy.

**For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”**

Paul quotes from Exodus as the Lord prepares the seventh plague of hail (with three more plagues after that). And it’s also interesting that right before Exodus 9:16 the Lord through Moses told Pharaoh that the only reason Pharaoh and the Egyptians weren’t dead *yet* is that He had spared them. But the sparing was to set them up for greater judgment. The Lord was getting *more* glory by enabling the Egyptians to treat His people *more* unfairly.

Paul makes the inference, the *therefore*: **So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.** Pharaoh was not a one-off.

A few more things.

First, Paul is rebutting the dilemma, not denying a premise. God does love/hate and save/harden *apart from works*. This is negative election, or what is called *Reprobation*. They are “vessels of wrath prepared for destruction” (9:22). If election is under-appreciated by so many professing Christians, reprobation is downright reprehensible to them.

Second, Paul anticipates the next push back in the next verse: “You will say to me then, ‘Why does He still find fault? For who can resist His will?’” If men were judged and hardened *only* because they deserved it, there would be no reason for this question, and we’ll see Paul’s answer to it in verses 20-23.

Third, this isn’t a denial of man’s, or Pharaoh’s, responsibility for their sin. But Paul’s point here is about God’s freedom to act.

For all the people that like to point out when Exodus describes Pharaoh as hardening his own heart, it’s more than a matter of counting how many times God hardened vs. Pharaoh hardened. God told Moses what He was going to do to Pharaoh (Exodus 4:21). God tells Pharaoh what He was going to do through Pharaoh (Exodus 9:16). It wasn’t God’s response, it was God’s purpose of election “in order to make known the riches of His glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—“ (9:23).

# Conclusion

“Great is the Lord and greatly to be praised, and His greatness is unsearchable” (Psalm 145:3). His mercy is infinitely excellent. His justice is infinitely excellent. His righteousness, as in His commitment to showing off His infinitely excellent glory, is perfect. He is not a grand-father figure sitting in His chair giving pats on the head to those who don’t give Him grief.

So there is no dilemma for God. Freedom to show mercy is God’s glory, goodness, and name (see Exodus 33:18-19). His purpose of election stands (Romans 9:11) and it belongs with His outstanding excellencies.

----------

## Charge

His mercies are new every morning, and His excellencies are majestic for eternity. Live from faith to faith in His righteousness. He is committed to His glory, which means He is committed to showing His mercies to and through you. His mercies are able.

## Benediction:

> Now to him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you blameless before the presence of his glory with great joy, to the only God, our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen. (Jude 1:24–25, ESV)

God saved us so that we would “proclaim the excellencies of him who called [us] out of darkness into his marvelous light” (1 Peter 2:9). “Once [we] had not received mercy, but now [we] have received mercy” (1 Peter 2:10). His election and His mercy are worthy of praise.

The word translated “excellencies” (τὰς ἀρετὰς) is a frequently used word by Greek authors. Homer used it regularly where military valor or exploits resulted in recognition and renown for heroes. Excellence was a quality to pursue as promoted by Plato and the Stoics, describing one having “uncommon character worthy of praise, virtue” (BAGD). Not just excellence, but consummate, perfect, supreme, ultimate excellence. To have excellence is to be surpassing, to be outstanding.

The “chosen” (the Greek word in verse 9 is ἐκλεκτόν), those called out of darkness, are brought to light to praise the Light. We are made God’s people in order to make known God’s excellencies, plural. And one of His excellencies is His election unto mercy. It’s sovereign grace.

In Romans 9 Paul is dealing with the apparent problem that so many of his Jewish brothers had not received the Messiah (Romans 9:1-5). If the gospel was the power of God to salvation for Jews first, why were so many Jews not believing? Was God not actually that powerful? While it was a heavy burden for the apostle, it did also have biblical precedent (9:6-13). God had been choosing some rather than all throughout Israel’s history, including His choice of Jacob/Israel over Jacob’s twin. God chose Isaac over Ishmael for covenant promises, as well as Israel over Esau. God’s choice was not based on anything He saw in the boys, but “in order that God’s purpose of election might continue” (Romans 9:11).

As Paul answers one question about God’s righteousness he provokes another. The initial explanation for why God’s word hasn’t failed is that God’s word—His promises—were intended for the elect. Though He had elected the entire nation in one way He had not elected every individual in the nation in another way. “Not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel” (9:6). God is faithful to all those He chose.

But does that make God unfair? If God elected Jacob instead of Esau, isn’t that unjust? If God had chosen based on what either of them had done, then it would only be unjust if He chose the doer of bad over the doer of good. If God saw that Jacob was going to be more virtuous than Esau, and God chose Jacob because of it, then there would be no question about God’s righteousness. But He chose before they were born, before they had done good or bad.

“What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part?” We’ve jumped out of the frying pan into the theological fire. Wouldn’t it be better if God was weak rather than wicked? Wouldn’t it be better if He made promises He couldn’t keep rather than keep promises that were arbitrary/random/reasonless. Was Esau a victim of divine discrimination? Did Ishmael get fair treatment from God?

Paul not only denies that God is unrighteous in His purpose of election but even proclaims God’s purpose of election as part of what makes God so glorious. God reveals, and God celebrates in, God’s sovereignty. Election belongs with His excellencies. His excellencies aren’t that we found out way out of darkness and once we got ourselves into the light we finally could say, “Wow, look at Him!” The excellencies start with His mercy to us sinners.

This is really radical stuff. We need some time to work through it. I am not in the cage-stage of Calvinism, but I’m not sure I’m close to maximizing my finite abilities to grasp His infinite excellencies, including how glorious His mercies are.

The first time I preached this passage was almost twenty years ago, April 2003. It happened in God’s providence that I was also reading a book by Jonathan Edwards titled, The End for Which God Created the World. I’d grown up finishing every prayer that God would do everything for His glory, and I’m amazed at how much there is to consider in that request. It also belongs with Paul’s explanation of God’s righteousness in Romans 9.

One of Edwards’ most profound and puritanical illustrations requires a little imagination. Imagine that there existed in the universe a being that had only one function: to judge worth. And one day this 3rd-party judge was presented with two objects for consideration: God and creation, all-creation, taken together. It is already leaning heavily in the direction of the Creator; as great as creation is, all that glory belongs to the one who gave it being. Even without the sin parts, creation is not eternal, omniscient, omnipotent, or even omnipresent.

The judge of worth might be taxed on other days distinguishing value between two types of butterflies, or which book in the Ransom trilogy is best, but the exercise of deciding between God and creation would be laughable if it weren’t so crucial. In God we live and move and have our being (Acts 17:28). In God we have our source of categories, physical (day and night, water and land, seeds and trees of their kinds, sun and moon and stars) as well as moral (do and do not, right and wrong, love and hate, love this with all).

As it turns out, there is a perfect judge of worth, and He is God Himself.

Who has measured the Spirit of the LORD,

To whom then will you liken God,

For what it’s worth, Isaiah 40:13 is quoted in Romans 11:34.

God knows all, truly and fully. He knows what is good and great and greatest. He knows, He reveals, and it turns out He also encompasses what is excellent. He knows what is right and it is His delight. He shares with us what is right and a cause of delight. It is right for Him to delight in our delight of what is right. He glories in His glory. God celebrates God’s glory.

Let’s bring it into the salvation discussion. “God is love” (1 John 4:16). He is the one who defines love, He also has demonstrated it better than anyone in the universe in the sending of His Son to take on the humble form of a servant and then obey unto death, even death on a cross for rebels (Philippians 2:8, Romans 5:8). His love is infinite, His love is infinitely excellent. If God exalted any love over His own love He would be wrong.

“Gracious is the LORD, and righteous; our God is merciful” (Psalm 116:5). As Moses told the Israelites, “For the LORD your God is a merciful God” (Deuteronomy 4:31). There is no higher Platonic form of mercy than God’s actual mercy. His mercy is infinitely excellent. If God pointed away from His mercy He would be untrustworthy.

Mercy is the first issue in Romans 9:14-18. “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,” “it depends…on God who has mercy,” “he has mercy on whomever he wills.” The first comes in a quote, both of the following come as conclusions in his argument. We’ll see more through the paragraph next Lord’s Day.

For now, consider the context of the first OT quote. By no means is there injustice in God “For he says to Moses, ‘I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.’” The original source is Exodus 33:19.

In the last half of Exodus 33 Moses is pleading with the LORD to come with Israel (Exodus 33:12-23). God was sending Israel from Sinai to the Promised Land, but He was only sending an angel to go before them; “I will not go up among you, lest I consume you on the way, for you are a stiff-necked people” (Exodus 33:1-3). This was a “disastrous word” (verse 4), no good to go without God’s presence. Moses reminds the LORD that this “people” had been chosen by the LORD (verse 13), and that it was in God’s “going with” that Israel was distinct from every other people (verse 16).

The LORD agrees to go (verse 17), and then Moses said, “Please show me your glory” (Exodus 33:18). It is God’s response in Exodus 33:19 that Paul quotes in Romans 9:15.

And he said, “I will make all my goodness pass before you and will proclaim before you my name ‘The LORD.’ And I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy. (Exodus 33:19)

This is His glory, the answer to Moses’ request, His excellence. This is His name, His nature as the “I am that I am.” This is what it means to be the “I am,” which is the freedom to be merciful to whomever He pleases.

God’s glory is sovereign grace. God tells Moses that His glory can be seen in unconditional election. Electing whomever He wants to receive His mercy is not only not unrighteous, it is among His excellencies. This is part of Paul’s answer to the rhetorical accusation in Romans 9:14. God does not elect based on good or bad works (9:11) or on “human will or exertion” (9:16), but according to His own merciful purpose. That is not only not unjust, it is godly.

It turns out that God elects unto hardening as well. He hated Esau, and He raised up Pharaoh to harden Pharaoh to show off His power in judgment. There are “vessels of wrath prepared or destruction” (Romans 9:22). But remember, God’s justice and power and wrath are also infinitely excellent.

Election is God’s glory. It's more than revelation, it is God's own celebration. He doesn't elect reluctantly, it's not a distasteful part of His job. It is His delight. He has made known the riches of His glory for vessels of mercy that we might proclaim—and have our hope in—His excellencies.

The steadfast love of the LORD never ceases;

God’s righteousness is His commitment to showing off His excellencies. As you comprehend more of His fullness, and as His greatness expands your thoughts and excites your affections, present your members to God as instruments for righteousness, that is, present your bodies to showing off His excellencies.

[May] your love may abound more and more, with knowledge and all discernment, so that you may approve what is excellent, and so be pure and blameless for the day of Christ, filled with the fruit of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God. (Philippians 1:9–11, ESV)

God saved us so that we would “proclaim the excellencies of him who called [us] out of darkness into his marvelous light” (1 Peter 2:9). “Once [we] had not received mercy, but now [we] have received mercy” (1 Peter 2:10). His election and His mercy are worthy of praise.

The word translated “excellencies” (τὰς ἀρετὰς) is a frequently used word by Greek authors. Homer used it regularly where military valor or exploits resulted in recognition and renown for heroes. Excellence was a quality to pursue as promoted by Plato and the Stoics, describing one having “uncommon character worthy of praise, virtue” (BAGD). Not just excellence, but *consummate*, perfect, supreme, ultimate excellence. To have excellence is to be surpassing, to be outstanding.

The “chosen” (the Greek word in verse 9 is ἐκλεκτόν), those called out of darkness, are brought to light to praise the Light. We are made God’s people in order to make known God’s excellencies, plural. And one of His excellencies is His election unto mercy. It’s sovereign grace.

# Righteous in All His Ways

In Romans 9 Paul is dealing with the apparent problem that so many of his Jewish brothers had *not* received the Messiah (Romans 9:1-5). If the gospel was the power of God to salvation for Jews first, why were so many Jews not believing? Was God not actually that powerful? While it was a heavy burden for the apostle, it did also have biblical precedent (9:6-13). God had been choosing some rather than all throughout Israel’s history, including His choice of Jacob/Israel over Jacob’s twin. God chose Isaac over Ishmael for covenant promises, as well as Israel over Esau. God’s choice was not based on anything He saw in the boys, but “in order that God’s purpose of election might continue” (Romans 9:11).

As Paul answers one question about God’s righteousness he provokes another. The initial explanation for why God’s word hasn’t failed is that God’s word—His promises—were intended for the elect. Though He had elected the entire nation in one way He had not elected every individual in the nation in another way. “Not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel” (9:6). God is faithful to all those He chose.

But does that make God unfair? If God elected Jacob instead of Esau, isn’t that unjust? If God had chosen based on what either of them had done, then it would only be unjust if He chose the doer of bad over the doer of good. If God saw that Jacob was going to be more virtuous than Esau, and God chose Jacob because of it, then there would be no question about God’s righteousness. But He chose before they were born, before they had done good or bad.

“What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part?” We’ve jumped out of the frying pan into the theological fire. Wouldn’t it be better if God was weak rather than wicked? Wouldn’t it be better if He made promises He couldn’t keep rather than keep promises that were arbitrary/random/reasonless. Was Esau a victim of divine discrimination? Did Ishmael get fair treatment from God?

Paul not only denies that God is unrighteous in His purpose of election but even proclaims God’s purpose of election as part of what makes God so glorious. God reveals, and God celebrates in, God’s sovereignty. Election belongs with His excellencies. His excellencies aren’t that we found out way out of darkness and once we got ourselves into the light we finally could say, “Wow, look at Him!” The excellencies start with His mercy to us sinners.

This is really radical stuff. We need some time to work through it. I am not in the cage-stage of Calvinism, but I’m not sure I’m close to maximizing my finite abilities to grasp His infinite excellencies, including how glorious His mercies are.

# The End of the World

The first time I preached this passage was almost twenty years ago, April 2003. It happened in God’s providence that I was also reading a book by Jonathan Edwards titled, _The End for Which God Created the World_. I’d grown up finishing every prayer that God would do everything for His glory, and I’m amazed at how much there is to consider in that request. It also belongs with Paul’s explanation of God’s righteousness in Romans 9.

One of Edwards’ most profound and puritanical illustrations requires a little imagination. Imagine that there existed in the universe a being that had only one function: to judge worth. And one day this 3rd-party judge was presented with two objects for consideration: God and creation, all-creation, taken together. It is already leaning heavily in the direction of the Creator; as great as creation is, all that glory belongs to the one who gave it being. Even without the sin parts, creation is not eternal, omniscient, omnipotent, or even omnipresent.

The judge of worth might be taxed on other days distinguishing value between two types of butterflies, or which book in the Ransom trilogy is best, but the exercise of deciding between God and creation would be laughable if it weren’t so crucial. In God we live and move and have our being (Acts 17:28). In God we have our source of categories, physical (day and night, water and land, seeds and trees of their kinds, sun and moon and stars) as well as moral (do and do not, right and wrong, love and hate, love this with all).

As it turns out, there is a perfect judge of worth, and He is God Himself.

> Who has measured the Spirit of the LORD,

> or what man shows him his counsel?

> Whom did he consult,

> and who made him understand?

> Who taught him the path of justice,

> and taught him knowledge,

> and showed him the way of understanding?

> Behold, the nations are like a drop from a bucket,

> and are accounted as the dust on the scales;

> behold, he takes up the coastlands like fine dust.

> Lebanon would not suffice for fuel,

> nor are its beasts enough for a burnt offering.

> All the nations are as nothing before him,

> they are accounted by him as less than nothing

> and emptiness.

>

> To whom then will you liken God,

> or what likeness compare with him?

> (Isaiah 40:13–18 ESV)

For what it’s worth, Isaiah 40:13 is quoted in Romans 11:34.

God knows all, truly and fully. He knows what is good and great and greatest. He knows, He reveals, and it turns out He also encompasses what is excellent. He knows what is right and it is His *delight*. He shares with us what is right and a cause of delight. It is right for Him to delight in our delight of what is right. He glories in His glory. God celebrates God’s glory.

# The Excellencies of Mercy and Wrath

Let’s bring it into the salvation discussion. “God is love” (1 John 4:16). He is the one who defines love, He also has demonstrated it better than anyone in the universe in the sending of His Son to take on the humble form of a servant and then obey unto death, even death on a cross *for rebels* (Philippians 2:8, Romans 5:8). His love is infinite, His love is infinitely excellent. If God exalted any love over His own love He would be wrong.

“Gracious is the LORD, and righteous; our God is merciful” (Psalm 116:5). As Moses told the Israelites, “For the LORD your God is a merciful God” (Deuteronomy 4:31). There is no higher Platonic form of mercy than God’s actual mercy. His mercy is infinitely excellent. If God pointed away from His mercy He would be untrustworthy.

Mercy is the first issue in Romans 9:14-18. “I will have *mercy* on whom I have mercy,” “it depends…on God who has *mercy*,” “he has *mercy* on whomever he wills.” The first comes in a quote, both of the following come as conclusions in his argument. We’ll see more through the paragraph next Lord’s Day.

For now, consider the context of the first OT quote. By no means is there injustice in God “For he says to Moses, ‘I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.’” The original source is Exodus 33:19.

In the last half of Exodus 33 Moses is pleading with the LORD to come with Israel (Exodus 33:12-23). God was sending Israel from Sinai to the Promised Land, but He was only sending an angel to go before them; “I will not go up among you, lest I consume you on the way, for you are a stiff-necked people” (Exodus 33:1-3). This was a “disastrous word” (verse 4), no good to go without God’s presence. Moses reminds the LORD that this “people” had been chosen by the LORD (verse 13), and that it was in God’s “going with” that Israel was distinct from every other people (verse 16).

The LORD agrees to go (verse 17), and then Moses said, “Please show me your glory” (Exodus 33:18). It is God’s response in Exodus 33:19 that Paul quotes in Romans 9:15.

> And he said, “I will make all my goodness pass before you and will proclaim before you my name ‘The LORD.’ And I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy. (Exodus 33:19)

This is His **glory**, the answer to Moses’ request, His *excellence*. This is His **name**, His nature as the “I am that I am.” This is what it means to be the “I am,” which is the freedom to be merciful to whomever He pleases.

God’s glory is sovereign grace. God tells Moses that His glory can be seen in unconditional election. Electing whomever He wants to receive His mercy is not only not unrighteous, it is among His excellencies. This is part of Paul’s answer to the rhetorical accusation in Romans 9:14. God does not elect based on good or bad works (9:11) or on “human will or exertion” (9:16), but according to His own merciful purpose. That is not only not unjust, it is *godly*.

It turns out that God elects unto hardening as well. He hated Esau, and He raised up Pharaoh to harden Pharaoh to show off His power in judgment. There are “vessels of wrath prepared or destruction” (Romans 9:22). But remember, God’s justice and power and wrath are also infinitely excellent.

# So What

Election is God’s glory. It's more than revelation, it is God's own celebration. He doesn't elect reluctantly, it's not a distasteful part of His job. It is His delight. He has made known the riches of His glory for vessels of mercy that we might proclaim—and have our hope in—His excellencies.

> The steadfast love of the LORD never ceases;

> his mercies never come to an end;

> they are new every morning;

> great is your faithfulness.

> “The LORD is my portion,” says my soul,

> “therefore I will hope in him.”

> (Lamentations 3:22–24 ESV)

----------

## Charge

God’s righteousness is His commitment to showing off His excellencies. As you comprehend more of His fullness, and as His greatness expands your thoughts and excites your affections, present your members to God as instruments for righteousness, that is, present your bodies to showing off His excellencies.

## Benediction:

> [May] your love may abound more and more, with knowledge and all discernment, so that you may approve what is excellent, and so be pure and blameless for the day of Christ, filled with the fruit of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God. (Philippians 1:9–11, ESV)

# Introduction

The thing that distinguishes the true God from every other wannabe-god is that the true God declares what is going to happen (Isaiah 46:10); He tells the end from the beginning. He predestines. In His omniscience He does more than consider all the possibilities or make great calculations based on likelihoods, He “does all that He pleases” (Psalm 115:3) and accomplishes all His purpose.

When He gives His Word it’s such a deep ocean that our hope ships will never run aground. His arm is never too short to accomplish His end (Isaiah 59:1), He “works all things according to the counsel of His will…to the praise of His glory” (Ephesians 1:11-12).

The word that summarizes this perhaps better than any other is *election*. To elect means to choose, to choose one over another, one instead of another, this and this and not that. “God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass” (Westminster Confession, 3.1). He elects it all.

Such ultimate prerogative is what men wish they had, it is the hubris gas that drives the car of humanism. Sovereignty means deciding that is determinative. We think we can decide. Abraham Kuyper called these the only two real alternatives in viewing how the world works: either God decides or man decides.

Romans 9:6-13 asserts the electing purposes of God to such an extent that Paul raises the objection about God’s righteousness. How can God find fault with anyone if they are only doing whatever God elected them to do (9:14-23)? But that is the second question about God’s righteousness. The first question about God’s righteousness has to do with the fact of God’s election of Israel. The Lord made covenants with Israel, and it appears that His Word may not be reliable. In Romans 9:1-5 Paul has heartache that his kinsmen, the Jews, who had been given such exclusive privileges as a people, had for the most part rejected the Messiah. That calls God’s covenants into question.

In Romans 9:6-13 Paul begins the explanation of his covenant confidence. God's covenant-promises to Israel are completely reliable, but that requires understanding that God's election purposes have distinguished/elected between individuals within the nation, until a time when all the individuals will be included. “All Israel will be saved” in accordance with the covenant as Paul asserts in chapter 11. For now he’s answering the possible charge that God’s Word can’t be trusted. If He changes His mind, or is unable to fulfill what He said, then our hope is gutted.

# The Affirmation of God’s Covenant Faithfulness (verse 6a)

The rest of the paragraph demonstrates this truth: **But it is not as though the word of God has failed.**

The **word of God** isn’t just all Scripture, it is especially summarizes “the covenants” and “the promises” as referred to in verse 4. Those covenants were given to “the patriarchs” mentioned in verse 5, and the covenants were especially focused on the Messiah. Paul’s burden in the previous paragraph is that all the covenant-promises to the patriarchs about the Christ seemed to point to the whole nation being saved, yet many of his Jewish brothers were “accursed and cut off from Christ” (verse 3). Doesn’t that call God’s faithfulness into question?

No. The word of God has *not* **failed**. This word (ἐκπέπτωκεν) has the idea of “to drift or be blown off course and run aground, to become inadequate for some function” (BAGD). Paul is about to show in verses 6b-13 the *first* explanation about how this hasn’t happened, and chapters 10-11 give a second explanation about how it hasn’t happened. Election in Israel’s history included only some, and election of all in Israel will be the end of history.

# The Clarification of God’s Covenant Faithfulness - Two Cases (verses 9:6b-13)

God makes distinctions, and we see it in His election promise through Isaac and His election purpose through Jacob.

## Supernatural Promise - Not Ishmael but Isaac (verses 6b-9)

The first explanation about God’s covenant faithfulness is that God makes internal distinctions within the external category. This can be seen three different ways.

- For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel,

- and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring

- it is not the children of the flesh but the children of the promise.

Paul introduced this reality in Romans 2:28-29 - “For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a mater of the heart, by the Spirit.” Yet he immediately asserts that there *is* still advantage in being a Jew, “much in every way” (3:1-2).

**Not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel.** Two things about this. One, this only makes sense if we recognized that they do indeed belong in one way, but not in another way. The “Israelites” as identified in verse 4 *are Israel*, but there is a subset of individuals who had the corporate privileges *and* who believed.

Two, this isn’t about any who are not descended from Israel belonging to Israel. This isn’t yet the grafting in of Gentiles but the sifting out of Jews.

**Not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.”** Again, Ishmael *was* a child of Abraham. Even more, God promised to bless Ishmael and make many nations from him. But Ishmael was *not* the son elected by God to receive God’s covenant. Abraham argued with God about it, but God elected to work supernaturally to bring it about.

**This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.** The “flesh” could be natural descent, but based on the explanation in verse 9, the flesh here is through man’s efforts. Ishmael was a child of the flesh when Sarah gave her servant Hagar to Abraham. Abraham didn’t have an heir of his own, but then **this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.”** This is the supernatural *promise*, found in Genesis 18:10, with an emphatic, “Is anything too hard for the LORD?” in 18:14.

So both Ishmael and Isaac were children of Abraham in one way, but God worked a miracle in the 100 year-old dad and 90 year-old mom to provide the **children of the promise**. The distinction is *divine*.

## Sovereign Election - Not Esau but Jacob (verses 10-13)

The second case example is even more decisive. Both of these boys not only had the same father (like Ishmael and Isaac), they had the same mother. As R. C. Sproul once said, they were “wombates.” If someone had pointed to the natural distinction between a son of Hagar and a son of miracle, they had no similar argument here.

**And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, … she was told, “The older will serve the younger,”** This is more than out of the ordinary regarding firstborn rights.

Thus far recorded history. But verse 11 provides the how it happened and verse 13 provides the why it happened.

**though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls—** It was God’s choice, and it was not because He saw who would choose Him so He chose them back. The “corridors of time” or “God is outside of time” arguments say the opposite of this verse. Election was *not* by parentage, *not* by character (good or bad), *not* by conduct (works).

Not only does Paul say that the reason wasn’t in them, he gives two parallel phrases about the reason being in God: **God’s purpose of election** and **because of him who calls**.

Verse 13, while maybe not describing motivation in the same way that humans choose, does describe God’s clear distinguishing. **As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.** This is from Malachi 1:2-3, and in context, speaks about Jacob and Esau as individuals but also in the peoples that came from them, the Israelites and Edomites. Some interpreters conclude that Romans 9 isn’t about election of individuals to salvation at all, but about God’s election of Israel in history.

God *did* elect Israel as a whole (see as examples Deuteronomy 7:7-8; Psalm 33:12), but this didn’t need explanation, it was acknowledged (verses 4-5), and it was that very fact that presents the problem. The question isn’t whether the nation had privileges, that is agreed upon. The covenant questions are about why there are individuals within the elect nation that rejected Christ.

**Loved** is not mere acceptance or promotion but *salvation*, and **hated**, while not vindictive, is more than not accepting. Esau was not just “loved less,” he was rejected. This pattern of election was visible in Paul’s own day among his brothers.

> What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened, (Romans 11:7 ESV)

Yet his covenant confidence is that for a time, the individuals are some not others, and that at the end of time, it will be all the individuals.

> As regards the gospel, they are enemies for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. (Romans 11:28 ESV)

# Conclusion

God did not promise that each individual Israelite who ever lived in history would be saved. But He did promise that at a certain point in history He would save each individual Israelite living at that time.

So, Physical descent from Abraham is not enough, but it is not useless either. There is Israel by flesh and by promise. There are children by descent and by election. For now, among the entire race there is only an elect remnant. There are chosen persons among the chosen people. But one day, the circles will overlap completely.

*All Israel will be all Israel and all Israel will be saved.* So the word of God has not failed.

> "In chapter 9 it is sufficient to demonstrate that Israel’s unbelief and rejection were not *total*; there was a remnant. In chapter 11:11–32 Paul discloses what at 11:25 he calls “this mystery” that the rejection of Israel is not *final*.” —John Murray

And this is all what provides foundation for our hope in the promise of the gospel. “Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect?” (Romans 8:33)

Perhaps these truths are confusing, or seem irrelevant, or are even disagreeable. Remember that we are in chapter 9, so these are not the *first* things Paul says about the gospel. However you define God’s election, and whatever you think about your election status, the main question is: have you believed in Christ? There is forgiveness from sin and deliverance from death in Him alone. “There is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). Before there is confidence in His Word, you must receive His Word. Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved.

----------

## Charge

Christians, you don’t know when you will see each other again. Lord willing, some of you will see some others later this evening for fellowship, others next Lord’s Day for worship, some maybe again in the summer for celebration, and then some, you do not know if or when. As the Lord has given You eternal comfort by His Word, so share that comfort today with your brothers.

## Benediction:

> Now may our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God our Father, who loved us and gave us eternal comfort and good hope through grace, comfort your hearts and establish them in every good work and word. (2 Thessalonians 2:16–17, ESV)

“All Israel will be saved.” There will be a time in the future—it has not happened yet—when an entire generation of Jews will repent from their sins and believe in Jesus as the Messiah. The Christ, the King of the Jews, will reign on His throne in Jerusalem over the nation of Israel, and He will be worshiped and obeyed as the King of kings, King over all the earth. That is God’s covenant promise to ethnic Israel.

Again, “all Israel will be saved,” which is a quote from God’s Word (Romans 11:26; Isaiah 59:20-21). God’s Word makes no sense if this “Israel” is equal to the Gentiles in the Church. And what’s worse, God’s Word cannot be trusted if this “Israel” doesn’t mean those who are ethnically, nationally recognized as Jews.

The whole reason for Romans chapters 9-11 is Paul’s explanation, not just of God’s sovereign plan, but of the righteousness and reliability of God’s revealed promises. God’s Word never fails. There have been some amazing promises in Romans 1-8 so far, including being counted righteous by God through believing in the work of Jesus. God not only promises to justify those who believe, He promises to deliver them from the control of sin and conform them to the glorious image of His Son. He also promises that He will bring our glorification to finish, and that absolutely nothing in all the universe can separate us from the love of God through Christ Jesus our Lord.

If you know this epistle, you know that it would be easy, in some ways better, if chapters 9-11 weren’t inserted. Imagine going from the end of chapter 8, the climax of the doctrines of salvation, right into the practical applications in chapter 12.

No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Romans 8:37–39 ESV)

That’ll preach. (For that matter, the doxology in Romans 11:33-36 would fit after 8:38, too.) So why Romans 9 at all? What is the reason for it in Paul’s argument? And why so long? These are three chapters, not three sentences. This is (arguably) the largest sustained section in the entire letter. It is also a return to things previously raised.

For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. (Romans 1:16 ESV)

And at the end of chapter 2 into chapter 3, Paul qualifies the advantages of the Jews, especially regarding circumcision and possessing God’s Law, and then he asks, “Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God?” (Romans 3:3). The problem wasn’t how to get Jews and Gentiles to play nicely in the church. But why is God’s faithfulness even a question?

There wouldn’t be a question 1) if God hadn’t made covenant-promises to save the Israelites, or 2) if “Israel” meant anyone who believed and became part of the chosen people. This is the problem Romans 9-11 raises and resolves. The question is whether God’s Word is reliable. The answer is YES, and the evidence for the YES is that His covenant-promises to Israel haven’t been completed yet, not that His promises should be reinterpreted (as fulfilled in some other way). God promised a new covenant in which all Israel will be saved (Jeremiah 31:31-34), and the fulfillment of that either makes your faith in His Word compelling or a crapshoot.

We are entering a categorical section of Scripture. It speaks to Ecclesiology (Church); Eschatology (Kingdom), Soteriology (Election), and Doxology (Worship). It speaks to world history, church history, Jew and Gentile, and the intentional ministry of jealousability (11:11, 14). It deals with the last phrase of the thesis of Romans (1:16), the “Jew first” and what that means. It shows Paul's constant and most critical burden, another way he described his calling (in 11:13-14). These are vital truths that make us Calvinists (sovereign mercy, 9:18), Kuyperian (riches for the world, 11:12), Dispensationalists (Israel’s full inclusion, 11:12). What’s more, they make for humble worship in light of God’s sovereign plan to glorify Himself on earth (11:33-36). Amen!

For all that, I’ve got a book called Romans 9: The Most Neglected Chapter in the Bible by W. E. Best. And also, the truths here weren’t the first thing Paul wrote to the Romans. It is foundation, but you could come in the door of the house without realizing what you're standing on. We almost always do that; we learn later more of the layers. We know truly, we come to know more fully. The gospel is good news, these show it even gooder.

Today we open the door. Verses 1-5 do not explicitly state the question or the problem, they imply the problem as they set up how Paul feels about the problem. The actual question comes in verse 6, though even there Paul denies the negative answer. He makes the assertion that "it is not as though the word of God has failed." The gospel promises depend on the faithfulness of God’s Word.

There is no conjunction, no grammatical connection. This has led some to think the three chapters were a separate sermon inserted. But as I’ve already said, there’s so many details connecting the flow of the whole epistle. The first word in Greek is truth, which sets the tone for this testimony.

In three phrases he makes an assertion, a denial, and puts forward the closest witness he can. I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit. Rather than “protesting too much,” he’s setting up how big the burden really is. It’s big. He also refers to Christ and the Holy Spirit, not as fellow-witnesses, but as divine Persons who direct his witness.

Here is the thing he’s getting off his chest: that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. His pain is big and constant. The sorrow is a grief, a “heaviness” (KJV), and the anguish is a “misery, distress.” These are μεγάλη, large or even intense, and they are nonstop, endless. He took these with him everywhere.

What is the cause of the burden? He still hasn’t stated it.

Here he begins an explanation with For, and the sentence continues through verse 5.

This wish assumes that something isn’t right, and Paul appears to want to trade places. For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh.

The problem is that the Jews were under judgment for rejecting Christ. They were ἀνάθεμα, dedicated to destruction, cursed, and “separated” (NASB) from the Messiah.

He would go to the utmost end to fix this; he would be separated from Christ, he would go to hell, if that would get them to be saved.

Of course when this letter was read to the Romans, it would have been half a hot press minute since they heard Paul say that nothing “in all creation, will able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 8:39).

The brothers here are not his fellow-Christians (fellow-Christians weren’t cut off from Christ) but his kinsmen, these are family, these are fellow-citizens, same nationality. They are the sorts of people you have reunions with, that you go into war with, that you share a culture with. That is is according to the flesh brings it down to shared ethnicity, biology, blood-level.

These Israelites were chosen by God to receive blessings that no other nation on earth had, blessings which uniquely identified them.

They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen. (Romans 9:4–5 ESV)

Israelites are Hebrews, are Jews. God Himself renamed Jacob as Israel (Genesis 32:28), from whom the 12 Tribes came. The Greek text is a run-on with no commas but articles for every particular: the adoption and the glory and the covenants and the law and the worship and the promises. And yet the climax doesn’t come until verse 5.

“the plural as denoting the Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic covenants. No feature of Israel’s history marked their uniqueness as the recipients of redemptive revelation more than these covenants.” (—John Murray)

Sure seems like the New Covenant should also be included (see Romans 11:26-27, which quotes the “covenant” referred to in Isaiah 59:20-21, plus Jeremiah 31:31-40 along with Ezekiel 36:22-38). But all of these particular blessings could be summarized as the “word” (verse 6) and the “purpose of election” (verse 11) that the covenants and promises include, especially in the Messiah. These are for the “Israelites.”

Christ was an Israelite according to the flesh, from the tribe of Judah, through David (Romans 1:3). Christ was also a divine Israelite, the One who is God over all. This isn’t Christ and God, this is Christ who is God. Christ is the blessed unto the ages.

Paul’s burden is seeing the tragedy of his Jewish brothers’ lack of belief in light of their unique privileges. At the time only some believed (11:5, 14), just a remnant for now. They expected more. They expected ALL. They expected it because God said it. Why hasn’t God fulfilled His covenant promises to Israel?

No need to be afraid of this. It is all about Christ (see verses 1, 3, 5)! Because of Christ, who is God over all, all Israel will be saved. It is the pre-story of the gospel, it is the defense of gospel hope in God's Word. It explains why some (even many) reject Christ, it explains that grace overcomes rejection. It is the build up for what is probably the greatest benediction in Scripture, and the slingshot into the most basic of all our salvation: our bodies as living sacrifices based on the mercies of God.

God does not change His mind or His purpose or His covenant promises any more than the sun and moon will forbear to shine (Jeremiah 31:35; Psalm 72:7). That’ll preach!

The gospel is the power of God to salvation, to the Jew first and to you (Romans 1:16). You have been born again, not by perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God (1 Peter 1:23). The grass withers and the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever (Isaiah 40:8). Believe in His Word, live in righteousness from faith to faith.

Now to him who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery that was kept secret for long ages but has now been disclosed and through the prophetic writings has been made known to all nations, according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith— to the only wise God be glory forevermore through Jesus Christ! Amen. (Romans 16:25–27, ESV)