the principle of election in Romans 9 & 11
Since I felt forced by the text of Romans 11 to adopt the future-conversion view (i.e. that it prophesies the conversion of the people prior to the return of Christ), I have frequently come across those who attempt to counter that reading by appealing to Romans 9. The earlier chapter, after all, says that not all Israel is Israel, and thus narrows down the recipients of the promises.
There are numerous problems with this way of dealing with Romans 11, however.
1) Romans 9 has at least as many obscurities and difficulties as does Romans 11. So why is it that the latter chapter is treated like it must be subjected to Romans 9, but not vice-versa?
2) The principle of election articulated in Romans 9 is in fact a double-edged sword that can cut two ways.
3) While Romans 9 makes a comparison between the hardness of the Pharaoh of the exodus and that of Israel contemporary to Paul, careful reading of the two passages reveals an explicit disanalogy at a very critical point.
I’m not going to argue for (1) here, but I do want to reflect a bit on (2) and (3).
The principle of election – double-edged sword
It is clear enough that in Romans 9, Paul deploys the election argument to demonstrate that God’s Word has not failed. The hardening of the bulk of his kinsmen is not a failure of God’s faithfulness; according to His own sovereign election, He Himself has determined whom He will count as seed (9.6-8).
Nonetheless, one must not ignore the fact that in 9.4, concerning presently-lost Israel, Paul does affirm that they are Israelites, and the sonship, glory, covenants, and promises do belong to them. I don’t think we can simply pretend that in 9.6-8, Paul is simply flat out denying what he has just said.
Equally important, we must notice just what the principle of election is. That is articulated by use of the example of Esau and Jacob (9.11): God chose one and not the other before either had done anything whether good of evil (indeed, before they were born), so that the purpose of God might stand according to election.
The principle of election is that God freely makes a choice apart from any works whatsoever. But if this is the case, this not only buttresses Paul’s case in Romans 9 (and, for that matter, 11.7), where it serves to ground the selection of a remnant. It also buttresses Paul’s case in 11.28, where he says that Israel taken as a whole (i.e. the preponderance beyond the remnant) are enemies of God “for your sake,” but as regards election, they remain beloved for the sake of the fathers.
In other words, the very principle of election apart from works – indeed, apart from willing or running (9.16) – is what underlies the election of the presently-hardened mass. The fact that they presently reject Christ and despise the gospel is not any ground for assuming that there is no future for the bulk of Israel. Because God is not identifying them on the basis of their own willing or running.
Analogies and disanalogies
It is a point well-taken that in Romans 9.17, Paul implicitly compares Israel’s present hardened situation with the hardening of Pharaoh. God is free to have mercy or to harden whomsoever He will (9.18). And so, at present God has hardened the mass of Israel even as He hardened the heart of Pharaoh.
There is, however, a striking, explicit contrast between the two cases, which becomes evident when we compare 9.17 with 11.11.
“For this cause I raised you up, so that I might display my power in you….” (9.17)
“Did they stumble in order that they may fall? By no means!” (11.11)
The context of 9.17 indicates that God displays His power through Pharaoh precisely as one who is hardened. God’s stated intention in raising up Pharaoh was to make him a vessel of wrath (9.22).
But Paul pointedly denies that something similar is the case with Israel, and interestingly, he highlights his denial by using some counterpoint. God raised up Pharaoh in order to harden him unto judgment; Israel’s stumble is not in order that they may fall.
This is not a denial that Israel did fall; indeed, that is part of Paul’s point not merely in Romans 9, but also in Romans 11. But the point is that the intention is different, and that ties in to the ultimate outcome. It is one thing for God to raise up hardened Pharaoh merely as a display of His power; it is quite another for God to cast down hardened Israel for the sake of Gentile salvation. The former perishes in the Red Sea. The latter continue on in history, and ultimately find salvation as a collective people.
And one more thing….
When I was looking at OT prophecies during the process of studying paedocommunion a number of years back, I got a bit intrigued by the promise that “they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest” (Jer 31.34). It interested me, because I discovered that the terms in question for least and greatest are the same terms we would translate “youngest” and “eldest.”
In Romans 9.12, of course, Paul picks up on the prophecy to Rebekah that “the elder will serve the younger.” The greater will serve the lesser.
That’s a principle we see take many forms in Scripture – Joseph’s older brothers bow before him, for instance. But then, there is also our elder Brother among us as One who serves, and when some of His disciples dispute regarding who will be greatest among them, He tells them that those who desire to be great must serve.
I believe that God’s temporary rejection of Israel fits this pattern of the greater serving the lesser, the elder serving the younger.
In 9.13, Paul references Malachi 9.13: “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.” Given the nature of the context, we may be led to think that God despises the bulk of Israel and only loves the believing remnant.
But we need to factor in a lot of biblical evidence in order to grasp the total picture here.
For one, “hatred” need not mean what we assume, as Jordan has pointed out. Esau himself, although he could not repent with reference to recovering his birthright and blessing, nonetheless appears to have repented with regard to his relationship to his brother. Similarly, Genesis tells us that Jacob loved Rachel and “hated” Leah, but that surely simply means that she was not the kind of object of his affections like Rachel was, not that he despised her and wished her ill.
As significant as that data is, much more weighty is Paul’s own direct language in 11.28, referenced earlier: they are beloved for the sake of the fathers.
It seems to me that the case of the temporary rejection of Israel is a case again of the greater serving the lesser. Paul more or less says so in Romans 11.12, 15: it is through Israel’s fall that life has come to the Gentiles. In His wise and mysterious purpose, God has made the firstborn (which is how God identifies Israel in Ex 4.22) serve the younger, so that both ultimately may be saved.
Thus, election is not a case against the recovery of Israel to salvation. It is the very ground and guarantee of that recovery.