This is kind of the end of Paul's
last argument, but it carries us over, and it's one of the
most powerful verses in the New Testament, and one of the most
resisted also, 13. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau
have I hated. Really it is literally as it
is written, Jacob I love, Esau I hated. What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with
God? God forbid. For He said to Moses,
I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion
on whom I will have compassion. So then, it is not of him that
willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that shows mercy.
For the Scripture said unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have
I raised thee up, that I might show my power in thee, that my
name might be declared throughout all of the earth. Therefore hath
he mercy on whom he will, and whom he will he hardens. Thou wilt then say unto me, Why
doth he yet find fault for who hath resisted his will? Nay, but, O man, who art thou
that replies against God? Shall the thing formed say to
him that formed it, Why have you made me thus? Has not a potter
power over the clay of the same lump to make one vessel under
honour and another under dishonour? What if God, or if God, willing
to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with
much long sufferings the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction,
and that He might make known the riches of His grace on the
vessels of mercy which He hath afore prepared unto glory, even
us whom He hath called not of the Jews only, but also of the
Gentiles. As he said also in Hosea, I will
call them my people which were not my people, and her beloved
which were not beloved. Now, though the text is clear
enough, just like those on election, it's able to stand upon its own
two feet because it is clearly so taught in the scripture. It
will become much more clear, however, if we do something that
might be to our profit. That is, if we consider our text
today in the larger or the overall context. By the larger or the
overall context, we mean the section contained in Romans chapter
9, chapter 10, and chapter 11. This is the overall context in
which our verse is this afternoon. Now this is a special section
of Hebrews. It has a special purpose and
a special intent because it deals with a special subject, an important
one. One that deserved to be addressed. One that must be addressed to
the Jews in that particular day. Paul cannot avoid the issue that
is raised here in chapter 9 and 10. and 11. And then, too, we
might conclude the importance of the matter if we consider
the length of the discussion that Paul gives under this subject,
covering all of chapter 9, chapter 10, and chapter 11. And also,
I think perhaps we find another hint is given in the references
and the many, one after the other, quotations from the Old Testament
Scripture, since these things are calculated to make an impression
upon the Jews of that day. Now it was kind of standard procedure
in the epistles of Paul, you read them and you will see, that
the first part of Paul's epistle usually consisted of the doctrinal
part. There the doctrine was set forth,
doctrinal teaching, the correction of any error, the exposing of
any heresy. And then the second part of Paul's
epistle containing the practical matter, exhortation, and personal
matters that Paul wished to take up with them. Now, looking at
Romans, had Paul finished chapter 8 and gone then straight to chapter
12, he would have omitted a large section, but also a very important
and a very pertinent subject concerning the Jew. So, let me
suggest, before we go on, that as others have written in years
gone by, Romans 9 through 11 contains what is called, or would
be called, a theodicy. Here is a theodicy from Paul
in the Scripture. T-H-E-O-D-I-C-Y. And that's from a compound word,
theos, God, and dyke or dyke, justice. Thus, a theodicy is
a vindication of the justice of God in His marvelous dealings
with the human family. It literally means the justification
of God. And that's what Paul is doing
in this section of the Scripture. The justification of the providential
rule of God among men. If He is kind, some might say,
Why are there wars? Why is there misery? Why is there
suffering? Why are little children often
so badly treated and hurt? Why the murder of good and of
innocent people? Why does evil exist and seem
to triumph in the world? That would be a theodicy to take
that up and answer it. But Paul's theodicy has to do
with this question. Why are so many of the Jews perishing
in unbelief? Why is it that any Jew Children
and seed of Abraham are perishing in unbelief. Why were the seed
of Abraham being lost? After all, these were the direct
descendants of their father Abraham. They were Israelites. To them
belonged the adoption. The divine glory was put among
them. The covenants were established
and made with them. To them was given the law in
the magnificence of Sinai. They had the care and the exercise
of the temple worship and of the sacrifices. To them as a
people, great promises were made in and through their head to
Abraham. Their founding fathers were Israelite,
and what's more, Christ as concerning the flesh, came out or through
Israel." That's in Romans 9, 4 and 5. And according to the
Lord Jesus and the Apostle Paul, the gospel was to be to the Jew
first. We find that from Christ in Matthew
10, verses 5 and 6. We find it from the Apostle Paul
in Romans 1, and verse 16. We see it again in Acts 13 and
verse 46. And as Robert Haldane wrote,
it would seem that the blessings of the gospel would be given
to the descendants of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob. But such
was not the case in every point. There was widespread Jewish unbelief. Many of them did not espouse
Christ. Many of them missed the righteousness
of God, Romans 10, 3. And in Romans 9 and verse 31,
they did not obtain the righteousness of God. Some Israelites did not. they did not attain to the righteousness
of God. And in Romans 11 and verse 7,
they did not obtain what they sought. The election obtained
it, however, and the rest were blinded. Now, this all raised
the question that Paul deals with in Romans 9 and verse 6,
whether or not the Word of God has failed. with Israel as they
were, with many unbelieving and perishing, had it or did it mean
that the Word of God had failed? Had God's Word come to nothing? Had the promises become meaningless
and simply fallen down to the ground? There's a passage in
Psalm 77 and verses 7 through 9 that ask some pertinent questions
such as this. Will the Lord cast off forever? Will He be favorable no more? Is His mercy clean gone forever? Does His promise fail forevermore? Has God forgotten to be gracious? And Paul asks in Romans 11 and
verse 1, has God cast off His people which He foreknew? Then
in Romans 9 and verse 6, Paul says that what it is that has
befallen Israel does not mean that the Word of God has failed. The seed of Abraham, our curse
and our loss, does not justify the conclusion that the Word
of God has failed. If some Jews do not believe,
if they have not grace, If Paul's brethren after the flesh perish,
it cannot be said that the Word of God has failed or is failing. And the reason is given in the
last half of verse 6 of Romans 9, in that not all they that
are Israel are of Israel. That's a very important statement. and distinction from the Apostle
Paul. Then in verse 7 and verse 8,
he goes on to distinguish between the children of the flesh and
the children of promise. Then As we saw in our study this
morning on election, there is that distinction between Ishmael
and Isaac and between Jacob and Esau. So now at verse 13, we
begin to wade out into the deep. Before we do, let's consider
a point here in connection with what Paul is laying out and the
argument he is pursuing. His first point is not that there
are Israelites that are elect, that are in the favor of God,
for this is expected to be the case, being of the seed of Abraham. But the second and the more painful
point that Paul must make is that there are also reprobate
Israelites. There are Israelites that are
reprobate, and neither of them is based upon their works, of
their good or of their evil, of the individuals that are concerned
either in election or reprobation. I'm sure that you remember having
read from Romans 11 and verse 7 where Paul makes this distinction,
quote, the election hath obtained it and the rest were blinded. And by that, he has reference,
of course, to Jews or to Israel. And in verse 7, he speaks of
those of Israel, where there were the elect and there were
others, or the rest. Just as if in the world at large,
There are some elect and there are some that are reprobate. In Israel it was so, and it's
so in the population of the world at large. Now Paul's strongest
argument so far has been the case of Jacob and of Esau, which
was determined, he said, before they were ever born. Paul concludes
his discussion of them in verse 13 with the words we first read.
It is written, Jacob I loved, Esau I hated. Now this is one of the most perverted
verses of Scripture in the New Testament. And especially the
part concerning Esau and the meaning of the words Esau I hated. Boy, this pinches the Arminian. This puts the Universalist in
a box with his doctrine of universal love and universal salvation. Some try to evade Paul's words
here by telling us that hate here simply means to love less. It's not hate literally and actually,
but it simply means to love less. That it is a lesser degree of
love, they say. Now, suppose we grant them that. Suppose we grant them that perversion. Then we question them like this.
How will you explain the reason why God loved Esau less than
He loved Jacob? You haven't solved that problem
by trying to take that dodge at all. Others are content to
say that it does not refer to the persons themselves, but it
refers to the works of the persons that they were committed. This
cannot be allowed, seeing that Paul in verse 11 pointedly excludes
works, good or evil, as having any part in the matter. Then
there are those who dismiss the application to Jacob and Esau
because the passage Paul is quoting is from Malachi chapter 1, verses
1 through 3. The first three verses of the
book of Malachi. And they say, now listen, these
things were written along after both Jacob and Esau were dead. But in Malachi 1, 1 through 3,
it's clearly said to refer to the individual Jacob and Esau. The prophet Malachi says this,
were they not brothers? Yes, they were. Conceived as
twins, same father, same mother. conceived at the same time. Were
they not brothers? Yet I loved Jacob and I hated
Esau." Now, coming to Romans 9.14, let us read how Paul wishes
to be understood. Look at verse 14. What shall
we say then? Is there unrighteousness with
God? Now he faces an objection, whether
actual or anticipated, I cannot tell. But as Robert Haldane wrote
in his commentary, their own, verse 14, this objection definitely
proves how we are to understand Paul's reference to Jacob and
to Esau. Otherwise, the objection is without
any merit. There could be no reason for
such an objection if Paul were simply speaking of God's reaction
to their action, or to their good, or to their evil, or respecting
their character, or their use of free will. If that was what
Paul was saying, there is no room for the objection. The objection is because they
have understood Paul rightly. Haldane again said, it is the
view which suggests the objection. It is the view that Paul has
put forth that gives the ground of the objection. But notice
something. Paul makes no attempt whatsoever
to soften the doctrine or to make it more palatable unto the
Jewish prejudices of his day. He absolves God of any unrighteousness
in such an exercise of his sovereignty towards men in each way, elect
and reprobate. And Paul does something else.
He very quickly produces two Old Testament scriptures to confirm
the sovereignty of God in dispensing His mercy on some while hardening
others and destroying them with great vengeance and wrath. Look at his first example in
verse 15. It's taken from Exodus 33 and
verse 19. It is the place where Paul is
citing. It is that place where God tells
Moses, quote, I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and
I will show mercy. on whom I will show mercy." And
then look at Romans 9.16. Paul makes an application and
draws a proper conclusion. So then, not of him that wills,
nor of him that runs, but of God that showeth mercy." He quotes
the text, he draws the conclusion. His second example is in Romans
9, 17. That's taken from Exodus 9 and
verse 16, where God tells King Pharaoh, And in very deed for
this cause have I raised thee up, for to show My power in you,
that My name might be declared throughout all of the earth."
Listen, brother or sister, I've raised you up. I gave you a throne. I gave you a place in history
as a vessel to demonstrate My power and My overthrowing grace. Paul draws another conclusion
then in verse 9 and 18 of Romans. Therefore, so then, it follows,
God has mercy on whom He will and whom He will He harden us. Now actually, this is the summation
of both God's words to Moses and God's words unto Pharaoh. What God acts according to his
will, whether in dispensing his saving mercy or in hardening
and then righteously destroying those whose hearts are hardened. Now, this latter doctrine is
particularly offensive to many in Christendom today. Nevertheless,
we say, Scripture supports the idea that God actually is said
to be the agent in the hardening, as these are some nine times
said to be in the book of Exodus. When you read in Exodus 8, 9,
and 10 that Pharaoh's heart was hardened, that Pharaoh hardened
his own heart, but nine times that God hardened the heart of
Pharaoh. And the first time it's mentioned
in Exodus 4, And verse 21, it is also, God said, but I will
harden his heart that he will not let the people go. There
are two other examples of God hardening heart to men's destruction. Here are the texts if you'd like
to check them out. In Deuteronomy chapter 2 and
verse 30 of King Sihon. This is very strong. And the
other one is in Joshua 11 and verse 20. It was of the Lord
to harden their hearts, that they come in battle against Israel,
that He might destroy them utterly. Now, coming to Romans 9.19, and
here is another objection which is met and destroyed. Paul said
now, after I've written this, you will then say unto me, that
is, in response to these things, You're going to say to me something
like this, well, if that's the case, if God's will stands immutable,
how then does He yet find fault? Why does He blame us? Why does
He count us guilty? And how can He punish upon those
ground if He harden a man, if He withhold mercy? Why does He
reckon us guilty if His will is irresistible. Let's remember,
the same objection that we find here in verse 14 and in verse
19 are still used today. I've heard them many times since
I have believed in the doctrines of grace. I've had many say to
me concerning election and reprobation That would not be fair of God
to do that. If God didn't give everyone an
equal chance to be saved, He would not be fair. On the other
hand, I've heard them say, listen, if this is already settled, if
it is fixed by God's decree, then we are just puppets on a
string. We're just machines of some kind
that are automatically going through the movement. These objections
are still with them even today. So let's notice now how Paul
answers the last objection. Why does he find fault if his
will is more than we can resist? Notice that Paul does not soften
his answer. Not at all. He does not say,
now look, what I meant to say was this, or you misunderstood
me. What I really meant to say was
this. None of that from Paul. He does not soften his answer
at all. And in verse 20, he rebukes such
for their impudent quarrel against the ways of God. As if to say,
who are you, a mere man, we want to emphasize that, who are you,
a mere man, to call the God of heaven before the court of human
reasoning and judgment? Who are you to pass sentence
upon the way of the Almighty God? Now notice how Paul answers
those who question and reject the sovereign right of God to
mercy whom He will and to harden whom He will. Notice that he
answers this last objection with a rapid series of questions beginning
with the last half of the 20th verse. which is the lead-in,
by the way, to verses 21 through 24. He begins with a figure,
then he makes the application clearly so their minds can see. Here's the question. Shall the
thing formed say to him that formed it, why have you made
me like this? Shall what is formed rise up
in the face of the former? one who made it, and say, why
have you made me like this? Why could one like that call
into question? Such would be a preposterous
thing to even consider. Then comes the very picturesque
metaphor, beginning in verse 21, Paul paints the metaphor
of the authority of a potter over his lump of clay, asking
the question, has not the potter power over the clay. The word here, power, is that
word exousia. It means authority. It means
legal right, jurisdiction, liberty, the freedom, the capacity. It's
the same word we have in John chapter 1 and verse 12 where
He gave them the power to become the sons of God. The power, the
right, the privilege, or the authority. Thus the potter has
authority. He has right. He has over the
clay to make what sort of vessel he will from the clay in his
lump or at his disposal. It is entirely at his good pleasure
whatever he will fashion out of that lump of clay. Now this
metaphor of the potter and of the clay is a familiar one in
the Old Testament Scripture, it might be that that's why Paul
thought it was good to use it in this place. You'll find it
in Isaiah 29, there in verse 15 and verse 16. You'll find
it again in Isaiah 45 and verse 9. You'll find it in Isaiah 64
and verse 8. You'll find it in that great
parable of Jeremiah in chapter 18 and 1 through 6 where the
potter made a work upon the wheel. See the potter now at the spinning
wheel in our mind's eye as he reaches over, takes a piece of
that clay that he has there by his side, takes a piece of the
lump of clay that he has brought, throws it down upon the spinning
wheel as it goes round and around and carefully and skillfully
with his hands he frames it and shapes it into that vessel that
he would. Making the sort of vessel that
he wishes to make. Making that which is in his mind
and his good pleasure. Whatever's in his mind, he makes
that sort of a vessel. Now, please note two things here,
if you would. Let's slow down a little bit
and catch two things. Number one, he makes two sorts
of vessels. Only two. Two sorts of vessels. And some to honor and some to
dishonor. Some to serve a noble purpose,
or as Marshall's interleader has it, the vessel to honor,
that to dishonor." Such as she might make a beautiful flower
vase. for a queen's table, or he might
make a spittoon for a saloon. He might make either one of them. He makes vessels of honor, vessels
dishonor. Vessels honorable, vessels dishonorable. Secondly, and this is very important,
both sorts of vessels are made from the same lump of clay. Not only from the same lump of
clay, but by the very same potter. I remember a preacher years ago
who said he had two lumps. He had a bad lump here, an old
rocky lump here, and he had a good lump here. Paul says it is from
the same lump. Not one soft and smooth and pliable
and the other full of rock and gravel and grass and that kind
of thing. The clay is one lump. It is of
the same quality. It is of the same consistency
so that the vessels of dishonor are not the result of a poorer
quality of clay that is used by the potter. but by the good
pleasure of the potter he makes that vessel as he would. Verse
21 is an established fact. Thus the unfinished question
in verse 22 and verse 23. Shedd called this a conditional
interrogative sentence. In other words, what if is how
we ought to view the start of it. What and if God. In other words, if the case is
as follows, will you reply against God? If God be willing, if God
be willing to make thee sort, will you reply against Him? Let's see some of the words and
the phrases here in verse 22 and verse 23. If God willing to make a display of
His power and of His wrath, and willing to make known the riches
of His glory, did that which would accomplish both of these
ends." Now here we need to consider that the two kinds or the two
sorts of vessels that were or are fashioned by the potter have
their counterparts there in v. 22 and v. 23 in those that Paul
refers to in v. 22 as vessels of wrath fitted
to destruction. And in v. 22, vessels of mercy
which he hath aforeprepared unto glory. Now the meaning is not
to be missed. that the two sorts of vessels
of wrath and of mercy give God occasion to manifest and to exhibit
His mercy on the one, wrath, power, and judgment upon the
other, that some are vessels of wrath upon which God might
show and display His wrath, such as Pharaoh back there in verse
17. The Greek seems to be here in
the past tense. Having been fitted to destruction. Having been fitted. The NIV has
it this way. Objects of His wrath prepared
for destruction. So the conclusion is, some are
elect, and some are reprobate. And dare I say it, as such from
birth they are, from their mother's womb, as proved by the case of
Jacob and Esau, not being born, neither having any good or evil
that the purpose of God according to election might stand, and
that that might be, it was said to Rebekah, the elder shall serve
the younger, before they were ever born. God has no saving
intention toward the reprobate. They were not chosen in Christ.
They were not redeemed by the death and blood of Christ. The Spirit of God will not regenerate
them. They will not be effectually
called by the grace of God. They will not be savingly enlightened. They will not be granted repentance
unto life. God does not love them as seen
in verse 13, Esau, have I hated. Some, as Jude verse 4, were before
of all ordained to this condemnation. 1 Peter 2 and verse 8, some were
appointed to stumble at Christ. Some are not His sheep, John
10 and verse 26. Some He never knew, either in
election or redemption or salvation, Matthew 7 and 23. Their names were not in the book
of life. from the foundation of the world,
Revelation chapter 17 and verse 8. Now surely someone will hear
all of these things and they will say, this is a horrible
doctrine. I wouldn't be surprised people
to hear it and say, this is a horrible doctrine. Now as to the conclusion
is that God has made those reprobates. And they say this is a horrible
doctrine because it says that God has made some people only
to damn them. What shall we say to that charge? We say, though their damnation
is just, Romans 3 and verse 8, please note, God did not say
to Pharaoh, I have raised you up that I might damn you, but
I have raised you up that I might show in you my power, that my
name might be glorified throughout all of the earth. The ultimate
aim and end of both election and reprobation is, as John Gill
said, quote, his own glory, unquote, for the glory of God. It is for the display of his
many attributes. some by election, some by reprobation. Again, to quote the good Gil,
quote, this is the ultimate end of all of his decrees and appointments,
unquote, the manifestation of his glory, of his power, and
of his attributes. Jerome Xenakis reasoned thusly,
even if the Holy Scripture had been silent on reprobation, which
they are not, It would be implied from the doctrine of election. For if only some are elect, what
about the rest? Believing in election forces
you to take a position on reprobation as well. It has been probably
our custom that when we first came to the doctrines of grace,
we heard of election. We believed it. We knew we were
elect. We rejoiced in it before we ever
gave a thought to the other side. What about the rest? But believing
in election forces you to take a position on reprobation. And
I would suggest you'll be no stronger on election than you
are on reprobation or vice versa. Older theologians saw two things
in reprobation. Number one, They're non-election. They were not elected. This is
called preterition. That is, God passed them by in
the decree of election. This is not conditioned because
of their actions or behavior or whatever, it's the good pleasure
of God. Secondly, as to the reprobate,
not only did he pass them by, he did not elect them, he did
not choose them in Christ, he did not put them in union with
Christ, but they were appointed justly to condemnation for their
actual sin. righteously appointed to everlasting
doom as their sins deserve. We do not say they're punished
because they're not the elect. We say they are justly punished
because of their actual sins and transgression against the
Almighty God. Yes, it's a terrible decree,
a horrible decree, a hard decree for some to swallow, but nonetheless,
it is in the Scripture, side by side with election. And if
you believe in election, why not reprobation? How strong you
believe in election, how strong in reprobation, and vice versa. And may God apply these things. May God give us the grace the
faith, the courage to stand upon them since they are revealed
in the Word of the Lord.