Site hosted by Angelfire.com: Build your free website today!

Romans 9 - I Will Have Mercy on Whom I Have Mercy

In speaking of Jacob (Israel) and Esau (Edom) Paul quotes Exodus 33:19/Rom 9:15 – “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.” Paul then concludes, “So then it does not depend on the man who wills or runs, but on God who has mercy.” This saying only concerns mercy. Notice that nothing is said about “wrath” or “hardening”. (More on this later) If you read Exodus 33 and 34 you will see the reason why God shows mercy and compassion. Moses had asked the Lord in Exodus 33:12-16 to give Israel His presence, to go with them, so that they would be distinguished from all the peoples of the earth. Why does God grant Moses’ request? God’s sovereign choice? No, verse 17, “…for (because) you (Moses) have found favor in my sight and I have known you by name.” Moses then asks, “Show me thy glory!” The Lord replies, “I Myself will make all MY goodness pass before you, and will proclaim the name of the Lord before you; and I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious and I will show compassion on whom I will show compassion.” We see here that it is God’s nature – His name – to be gracious and show compassion, and He will show it to whom He will. However, nothing is said to the effect that the mercy God shows is unconditional. On the contrary, if we look at the context, we find that God’s mercy does have conditions attached to it.

When God descended and showed Himself to Moses (Exodus 34:6,7) He said, “The Lord, the Lord God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in lovingkindness (mercy) and truth; who keeps lovingkindness (mercy) for thousands, who forgives iniquity, transgression and sin; YET He will by no means leave the guilty unpunished, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations.”

Moses then replied in verse 9, “IF I now have found favor in thy sight…let the Lord go along in our midst, even though the people are so obstinate; and do thou pardon our iniquity and our sin, and take us as thine own possession.” In Exodus 33:3 God had said He would NOT go up in their midst because they were an obstinate people. Because of Moses, (“IF I now have found favor…”) God changed His mind. All this comes after chapter 32, which is the incident with the golden calf, where God tells Moses that He will destroy Israel – why? God’s sovereign choice? No – because they were disobedient and obstinate – and that God will make of Moses a great nation. Moses intercedes and causes God to change His mind. Obviously God’s decree that He would destroy Israel and instead use Moses to sire a great nation was NOT immutable. Yet the Lord said in 32:33-35, “Whoever has sinned against Me, I will blot him out of My book…in the day when I punish, I will punish them for their sin.” “Then the Lord smote the people, BECAUSE of what they did with the calf which Aaron had made.” The Lord punished BECAUSE of the actions of the people. The Lord had mercy and compassion on Israel and did not utterly destroy them BECAUSE of Moses’ intercession. In this Moses prefigures the great High Priest, Jesus, who continually makes intercession for us at the right hand of God. Because of Jesus fulfilling the conditions, God shows us mercy and compassion.

It is clear from this context, from which Paul quoted, that God’s mercy and punishment are not without conditions, they are not determined in eternity past by immutable decree, but are His responses to man’s decisions and actions. It is very clear that God is INTER-ACTING with Moses, and Israel, and not just playing out a predetermined scenario, like following a script. That was true of Israel and Edom and it’s true here of Israel and Moses. And, as Paul argues in Romans 9, 10 and 11, it is true of Israel and the Gentiles. God will have mercy on whatever nation He will (those He favors and who obey) and punish whatever nation He will (those who disobey). He is longsuffering in His mercy and will forgive sin and iniquity – His longsuffering mercy does not depend on the man (nation) who wills and runs, but on God who has mercy, because the man (Israel) has already sinned. God’s mercy to Israel in Exodus 33 is not related to Israel’s willing or running so in that sense the object (Israel) of the mercy and compassion has nothing to do with God’s bestowal of the same. However, God’s mercy and compassion is directly and conditionally related to Moses’ intercession. But for that, God would have wiped them out then and there. There is a limit to what God will put up with, however. If the object of His mercy does not live up to His conditions – love and obedience – then the mercy will be withdrawn. The history of God’s dealings with Israel is illustrative of this. That is Paul’s point – he’s using how God has dealt with the nation of Israel to make his argument.

So, to sum up my problems with Reform Theology’s position on Paul’s use of Jacob and Esau in Romans 9:

1) Reform Theology holds that Paul is using Jacob and Esau as illustrations or archetypes of God’s immutable choice from before the foundation of the world for the salvation or reprobation of every individual. None of the contexts (Rom 9, Gen 25, Mal 1) support that.
a) Reform Theology holds that when Paul quotes from Genesis, “The older will serve the younger” he (Paul) is referring to the twins themselves, but that interpretation has Paul taking the verse from Genesis completely out of context, which is counter to the hermeneutics that Reform Theology claims to adhere to. “A text taken out of context is usually a pretext for error” and “The meaning of Scripture today is its meaning to its original hearers.”
b) Reform Theology holds that when Paul quotes from Malachi, “Jacob have I loved but Esau have I hated” he (Paul) is referring to the twins themselves – but that interpretation has Paul taking the verse from Malachi completely out of context, which is counter to the hermeneutics that Reform Theology claims to adhere to. “A text taken out of context is usually a pretext for error” and “The meaning of Scripture today is its meaning to its original hearers.”
2) Reform Theology holds that God’s choice of Jacob (the individual) over Esau (the individual) concerned their personal salvation and reprobation and that God’s choice occurred before creation. Genesis 25 explicitly states that the choice concerned the nations descended from the twins and not the twins themselves and the only inference we could make from the text about when the choice was made would be that it occurred when the twins were in utero, not in eternity past.
3) Reform Theology defines the distinction that was made before the twins were born as, “Jacob have I loved but Esau have I hated” when, in fact, the distinction that was made before the twins were born was, “the older [nation] will serve the younger [nation].” The loved/hated distinction occurred centuries later.
4) Reform Theology interprets “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy” to mean that God’s mercy is given to individuals by God’s monergistic choice, and that man has nothing to do with it. The context from which this statement is given (Exodus 33:19) concerns the “choseness” of the nation of Israel and tells us the exact opposite. Moses had everything to do with God’s mercy to Israel. But for him, God would have destroyed Israel.

The fact that the Old Testament verses that Paul quotes from are severed from their contexts is the main thing that caused me to question the Reformed interpretation of Romans 9 in the first place. Upon reexamination 15+ years later, my discomfort with that is not only confirmed but increased to the point where I consider that what amounts to disrespect of the Old Testament contexts is a fatal blow to the Calvinist position on Romans 9.

Pharaoh
Main Index
Site Introduction/Setup

Email: hobbes1_5@hotmail.com