Henry Imler February 5th, 2007
Romans 9 is considered to be the “hammer” in the debates on Predestination and Free Will in terms of the salvation of the individual. Hank makes this point clear in his post, My Comfort in Romans 9. In this post, he expounds upon verses 9:11 and 9:14. It is Hank’s contention that only assuming a Calvinistic interpretation of Paul, does one raise the objections that Paul raises in the cited verses. If one adopts a Arminian position, one would not encounter the objections and because the objections are in fact raised, only the Calvinistic interpretation is the correct viewpoint.
Henry Thomas is correct… only if that section of Romans 9 is dealing with the salvation of the individual. If, however, the theme of Roman’s nine is different, if it speaks, say of the predestination of service, then one can hold an Arminian position and raise the objections that Paul raises.
In the beginning of Romans 9, Paul is writing about the seed of Abraham and how God chose that the line was used as a tool. This sets the tone for Romans 9, that the election that God uses to unfold his plan of history. Paul then goes on to write about the line of Christ and its election, one that God decided apart from any merit on any person’s part. The call that is written about here is not towards faith in Christ or God, but it is a call to service. This is then expanded from a discussion on Jacob and Esau to a discussion of their descendants, as noted by Paul by his quotation of Malachi; writing, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” In Malachi, this phrase is denoting the nations of Jacob and Esau – Israel and Edom. It should also be noted that the terms “loved” and “hated” misstate the issue. Translated properly, it should read “loved more” and “loved less.” Malachi, and thus Paul is not speaking about the election of salvation, but on the lineage of the Messiah. That is what depended upon God. Dr. Reese writes about this passage in his commentary on Romans.
Paul’s argument, so far, is one with which few Jews would find fault. The Arabs were the descendants of Ishmael who was a flesh and blood descendant of Abraham; but the Jews would never dream of saying that the Arabs are included in the “seed.” The Edomites were the descendants of Esau, and Esau was a true son of Issac, and the twin brother of Jacob; but no Jew would ever have included the Edomites in the “seed.” They could hardly disagree with Paul’s emphasis that God has been making choices all through history, selecting this one and bypassing that one, without being unfaithful to the promise about “seed” that He made to the patriarchs1
In verses 9:17 Paul further emphasizes the theme of the passage; the election in God’s formation of history, not salvation, with a discussion of Pharaoh. Paul quotes Moses’ conversation with Pharaoh to show that God acted in Pharaoh’s life to spare him from the plagues so that Pharaoh might be a mouthpiece of God - through Pharaoh’s life, God’s name might be proclaimed throughout the earth. Reese notes that the turn of phrase here indicates that God spared Pharaoh’s life, he did not create nor change Pharaoh as or into a monster, writing, “[b]oth in the Hebrew and the Septuagint, the idea is that Pharaoh had been kept alive instead of being cut off, that God’s power might be displayed in him.2” Was God doing injustice via this choice? Paul says no. But once again, the theme is the service and use in history, not of personal salvation.
Exactly how is this injustice denied? There is mention of God hardening the heart of Pharaoh, both in Exodus and in Romans. What does this mean? Reese notes that there is no mention of God making Pharaoh’s heart being hard to begin with. Reese explains the idea of hardening in the footnotes to his commentary on 9:18:
God himself is said to have hardened Pharaoh’s heart… [i]t is thus certainly declared to that this hardening is from God. But even so, it is nowhere said that God had made Pharaoh’s heart hard from the first, so that, after a willful resistance to appeal, final obduracy was sent on him as a judgment.3
We see evidence of this in Pharaoh hardening his own heart in Ex 9:34 and Ex 7:15-21; in other places it is said that God further hardened his heart. Therefore, one can conclude that once Pharaoh decided to act against God’s plan for him, instead of striking Pharaoh down, God decided to use him anyway, although through alternative means. The Bible does make it clear that God is sovereign in everything, yet does decide to allow humans to have the exercise of free will.
Thus, the charge brought by the objector in 9:11 and is answered in 9:14, that God is unjust in his selections in history, does come up within a Arminian interpretation.
Footnotes:
1) Reese, Gareth. New Testament Epistles: Romans p.386.
2) Ibid. 391.
3) Ibid. 391.
![Hundie Jo [Dot] Com](http://www.hundiejo.com/wp-content/plugins/ttftitles/cache2/ed3b8c4ef232c4aacb2cd5a2b72e4177.png){kind=small}
Today’s piece of unnecessary advice, otherwise known as “dumb things Henry did,” is on drinking homemade espresso drinks.
I am down to three pages left to go on my essay writing, so let me relate to you a weird incident from last night. 
In
I
The problem of Evil is a difficult one. It is the single greatest theoretical problem facing the three monotheistic religions: Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. Each agrees with the following premises: 1) God is all-powerful; 2) God is perfectly good; 3) Evil exists. It does not seem possible that all three can be true at the same time. One or more of the above statements must be false. It simply cannot be true that a Being that wishes there to be no evil (i.e. perfectly good) and has the ability to rid existence of evil (an aspect of being all-powerful) would allow evil to exist (as clearly is the case). This is the Problem of Evil in a nutshell.
