And not only [that], but Rebecca having conceived by one, Isaac our father,
Paul has just used Isaac and Ishmael to make a point. Being a descendant of Abraham is not the same as inheriting God's promise. Now he presses harder. He names Rebekah and one father, Isaac. Here the two children share everything a family can share, and God still chooses between them.
A Jewish reader could brush the first example aside. Ishmael and Isaac had different mothers. Rebekah's twins leave no such opening, and one writer traces where the argument lands.
The Apostle next takes up the story of Isaac and proves the same principle by his two sons. With Abraham, a Jew might object that the two sons had different mothers. No one can object that way about the sons of Isaac. Jacob and Esau were both sons of Rebecca. If the blessing comes by natural descent, then the children of both sons would inherit the promises. But that would force the Jew to include the Edomites, the people descended from Esau. No Jew would do that.
Only two options remain, and another writer names them.
There is more. Rebecca conceived by one man, Isaac. Here no one could dodge the point by saying the mother was a slave. Before the children were born, before they had done good or bad, God said the elder shall serve the younger. If the right comes by natural descent, you must let the Edomites in. If the Jew did not consent to this, he must consent to sovereignty in election.
The phrase "by one" points to a single father and a single conception. Commentators see God choosing the tightest test case He could.
In the first case the mother was different, even if the father was not. In His wisdom God saw a need to show His sovereign choice even more plainly. And that is what happened here. Esau had the same father and the same mother as Jacob, and the two were twins. No closer match between two people could be found than these two sons of Isaac and Rebecca.
Behind the words about Rebekah lies a barren woman and a husband who prayed. The line that carries the promise never once continues by natural strength.
Rebecca was the wife of Isaac the heir of promise. God had appointed her for him, and God sped Abraham's servant on his way to find her (Gen. 24). God, then, was in the birth of Isaac and the choice of Rebecca. Further, the conception of Rebecca was in answer to the prayer of Isaac's faith. He prayed for seed, and a double answer came; twins were in the womb of Rebecca.
God spoke to Rebekah before the twins were born. So nothing either child achieved can explain His choice. Commentators say this also rules out a subtler idea. God did not look ahead and pick the better man.
So the apostle contrasts God's call with works, not with our faith. He does this to shut out a weak idea some writers have held: that God's choice is governed by seeing ahead which man would turn out better. Language could not contradict this more plainly. Esau had done no wrong to disqualify him, and Jacob no good to qualify him.
If works are out, the reason must lie somewhere else.
This shows us that God chooses because of what He is in Himself, not because of what men show themselves to be by their works.
Writers note that the harsh word about Esau is not spoken here. Genesis only ranks the two nations. The language of hatred comes centuries later, in the book of Malachi.
Esau has no ground for complaint. God chose Jacob before he was born. But God did not say "Esau I have hated" until long after Esau was born, and not until Esau's character, and the character of his descendants, had been shown in full. (Mal. 1:3)
This is not an abstract debate. The reader who resents God's freedom is pulling away the only ground they stand on.
He proves to Israel that arguing against God's sovereign right to choose means giving up everything they have been given. For how did they get in? Was it by birth? No; for on that ground Ishmael and Esau had the precedence. Was it by works? No; for they made the golden calf. How then? Simply by God's sovereign mercy. Well then, if God is sovereign, He can show mercy to whoever He wants. And blessed be His Name, because that opens the door for us poor Gentiles — the nations outside Israel.
- One father. The twins shared both parents and one conception. No closer test case could exist, so descent explains nothing here.
- One dilemma. If bloodline settles the blessing, Edom inherits alongside Israel. Refuse that, and you have accepted God's free choice.
- One ground. Esau had done no wrong and Jacob no good. God did not look ahead at their merit. The choice rests on what God is in Himself.
- One caution. Genesis only says the elder will serve the younger. The word of hatred toward Esau comes much later, after his character came out.
- One open door. The same free choice a reader might resent is why Israel survived at all. It is also why mercy now reaches the nations.
[the children] indeed being not yet born, or having done anything good or worthless (that the purpose of God according to election might abide, not of works, but of him that calls),
Paul has just said that God's word to Israel has not failed. He proves it from Israel's own family history: twin boys, one mother, one father, and God's choice announced before either was born. If God decides before anyone has acted, is that fair?
Paul's first example was Ishmael and Isaac. A Jewish objector had a way around it.
Through Isaac shall your offspring be named; but the Jewish objector might say, Yes, but Hagar was a slave, and Ishmael slave-born. Well, but take Esau and Jacob of one mother — that is a case no one can object to. Yet Jacob was chosen, not Esau, and it was of pure grace, before they had done good or evil. The circumstances were natural, but the principle, pure sovereign grace, is to set aside the national claims of the Jews. They must let in Ishmaelites and Edomites, or allow God to be sovereign.
The choice settled position: which brother would hold first place on earth. Both boys later did wrong, and God's word still stood.
Even before their birth, God chose the younger son Jacob to receive the place of earthly supremacy. This proves that they were not blessed on the ground of their own works. When God spoke of their relative positions, they were not born, and they had done neither good nor evil. Afterwards they both did evil: but God secured, by His own faithfulness to His promise, the place of supremacy for Jacob.
A popular explanation says God looked ahead, saw that Jacob would turn out better, and chose on that basis. Commentators answer that the wording of the verse shuts that door.
The apostle contrasts the call of God with works, rather than our faith. He does this to cut off the poor semi-Pelagianism of teachers old and new, which would make election governed by the foreseen superiority of one to the other. Language could not contradict that idea more exactly. Esau had done no ill to disqualify him, Jacob no good to qualify him; but before either of the twins was born, God in the exercise of His sovereign will chose that the greater should serve the lesser. Such was His purpose. Their works had nothing to do with the matter. Paul shuts them out, so that all rests on the caller, God Himself.
Paul puts it negatively, then positively.
It is "not because of works" — neither works done at the moment when God chooses, nor works done later: it is "not because of works" at all! It is "of Him who calls". Here is the true source, origin and centre of divine purpose and election: it is in "Him who calls", in God Himself.
The same principle decides who inherits.
Esau had nature's right of inheritance, for he was the firstborn. But what was to be inherited was divine promise, and that can rest only in the vessel prepared to receive it. So God's calling runs ahead of the course of nature, and contradicts it. Blessing is kept in God.
Scripture later says God hated Esau. Readers often read that back into this verse, as though God rejected an unborn child.
There is no ground here for that absolute reprobation which Calvin deduces from this place. Not a syllable is hinted as to hating the unborn Esau in Genesis 25. Man is quick to infer the rejection of the one from the choice of the other. This is unfounded. Out of two who have no claim, to choose one to a superior place is to exercise will. But to show favour in one case is not to condemn the other. Both were born in sin and grew up in sins. That is what makes a person liable to condemnation, which turns on man's sins, not on God's purpose. It is not God's word to Rebekah, but the word spoken through the prophet Malachi, that speaks of hating Esau. It was at the very close of the Old Testament, after Esau had displayed his unrelenting enmity to Israel. The love to Jacob was thus free; the hatred had moral grounds in Esau.
The gap of centuries between the two statements is itself instructive about how God's choices are vindicated.
The wisdom and rightness of God's choice is always revealed in the after history, and thus His election always justifies itself in its results. Before Esau and Jacob were born the divine word was "the older will serve the younger." A thousand years after their careers were over it was put on record, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."
That leaves the question of fairness, and one writer meets it head-on.
His choice of Jacob did not depend on what Jacob would be. He did not choose Esau — He chose Jacob. Was God righteous in that? Is there unrighteousness with God? The apostle recoils from the thought. It is really a disrespectful question, which we have no right to raise. It is His right to have a purpose and to carry it out.
- Before — God spoke while the twins were unborn, so nothing either had done could explain His choice.
- Not because of works — neither works already done nor works God foresaw. The phrase leaves no room for works at all.
- But of Him who calls — the purpose starts in God Himself. His call runs ahead of nature's order of firstborn and younger.
- Not condemnation — to favour one is not to sentence the other. Condemnation rests on a person's sins, and the word about hating Esau came only at the close of the Old Testament, after long enmity.
- Stands — the purpose never rested on us, so we cannot overturn it. Our part is to bow before God, not to argue with Him.
it was said to her, The greater shall serve the less
Paul is answering a hard question. If Israel is God's chosen people, why are most of them missing out while Gentiles come in? To settle it he goes back to Rebekah's twins, and to a word spoken over them before either of them was born.
Paul picks an example that closes every escape route. Abraham's two sons had different mothers, so a critic could point there. Not here.
The Apostle next takes up the story of Isaac and proves the same principle by his two sons. With Abraham, a Jew might object that the sons had different mothers. No one could raise that objection about the sons of Isaac. Jacob and Esau were both sons of Rebekah. So if the blessing comes by natural descent, the children of both sons would inherit the promises — and then the Jew would have to include the Edomite. No Jew would do that.
The order of events is the whole point. The word came before the twins were born, so no record of theirs could have shaped it.
The apostle contrasts the call of God with works, not with our faith. He does this to shut out the weak idea, held by some, that God's choice is governed by seeing in advance that one person is better than the other. Language could not contradict that idea more plainly. Esau had done no wrong to disqualify him, and Jacob no good to qualify him. But before either twin was born, God in His sovereign will chose that the older should serve the younger.
Verse 11 sets the terms for verse 12. Every phrase in it carries weight.
The purpose of God is according to election i.e. according to God's sovereign choice. This principle 'abides'. It is 'not of works' — neither works done at the moment God chooses, nor works done later: it is 'not of works' at all! ... It is 'of Him who calls'. Here is the true source, origin and centre of God's purpose and election: it is in 'Him who calls' — in God Himself.
How does this fit with God's foreknowledge? One writer holds the two together and denies that a sovereign choice is a blind one:
Election, then, is distinct from foreknowledge, though based upon it. God's election, or choice, is not a blind, random drawing of lots... He chooses in the full light of His foreknowledge. So no sinner who truly wants to be saved finds the door shut against him because he is not one of the elect. His very desire is the fruit of the Spirit's work.
Much of the difficulty here comes from squeezing the two verses into one moment. Centuries stand between them.
Verse 13 has caused difficulty. But that statement comes from the book of Malachi. Those words were written long after both men had fully shown what was in them. Verse 12, by contrast, records what God said before their birth.
That gap answers the charge of unfairness. It also shows why the choice came before birth and not after.
Nothing shows this more fully than the choice of the younger son before either was born. When the younger son is chosen after birth — as with Joseph or David — people can say that his actions or his natural character earned him that preference. The important principle is that none of them have any claim at all.
The word to Rebekah spoke of two nations, not only two boys. The serving looks ahead to their history on earth.
Here we see their history on earth marked out beforehand. It is all the more striking because the unborn children had the same mother as well as the same father — they were twins... So God showed His sovereignty to be as free as it is sure to faith. This disproves descent by birth, on which the Jews based their exclusive title... His word made the point sharper still by declaring that "the older will serve the younger," and this with a view to the nations they would become.
Writers differ here. One puts it bluntly: "Romans 9 is simply absolute sovereignty. People talk about national election there, which is the very thing the apostle is denying" (J. N. Darby).
The same sovereignty Israel objects to is the reason Israel still stands.
There is then an election which distinguishes between the children of the promise and the children of the flesh. Once again you must allow the sovereignty of God. Without it, all is over with you since Sinai, where you broke the covenant of the Lord... So there is no unrighteousness with God. You have no room to complain, if He acts toward the Gentiles in the same sovereign mercy which He has shown to you.
- Before birth — God spoke the word while the twins were unborn. Neither man's record could win it or lose it.
- Before works — "Not of works" rules out deeds done then and deeds done later. The source is "Him who calls" — God Himself.
- Before objection — Same father, same mother, one birth. If natural descent decided the promise, Israel would have to count the Edomites in too.
- Before the hatred — God spoke verse 12 to Rebekah. "Esau I hated" came in Malachi, long after both men had lived their lives.
- Beyond Israel — God's mercy is the only reason Israel survived Sinai. So no one can protest when that same mercy reaches Gentiles.
according as it is written, I have loved Jacob, and I have hated Esau.
Paul ends his case against Israel's claim by birth with words God spoke through the prophet Malachi. Both men were long dead by then, and the words sound harsh — so commentators ask when God said them, and why.
The two halves of the sentence come from two different books of the Bible. Mixing them up creates most of the difficulty.
Like many others, you confuse two distinct passages of Holy Scripture. God did not say, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated," before the children were born. He said it hundreds of years later, after the real character and daily ways of each man had come out fully. Before the children were born He said only this: "the older shall serve the younger." It is more than a sad mistake to represent God as hating a man before he was born. In Amos 1:11 we read, "For three transgressions of Edom, and for four, I will not revoke the punishment, because he pursued his brother with the sword and cast off all pity, and his anger tore perpetually, and he kept his wrath forever." Do we not have here ample grounds for the divine hatred?
God made this choice when neither twin had a record to show. So He did not pick the better man.
Esau had done no wrong to disqualify him, and Jacob no good to qualify him. But before either twin was born, God chose by His own sovereign will that the greater should serve the lesser. Such was His purpose. Their works had nothing to do with the matter and count for nothing here. Everything rests on the caller, God Himself.
Many people read the choice of one brother as the rejection of the other. Commentators answer that the love and the hatred do not rest on the same ground.
There is no ground here for the absolute rejection which Calvin draws from this passage. Genesis 25 does not hint by a single syllable at hating the unborn Esau. Man hastily infers the rejection of one from the choice of the other. This is unfounded. Out of two who have no claim, to choose one for a higher place is an act of will. But to show favour in one case is not to condemn the other. In themselves both were born in sin, and no doubt grew up in sins. That is what makes a man liable to condemnation, which turns on man's sins, not on God's purpose... The love to Jacob was free; the hatred had moral grounds in Esau.
Their lives showed what each man was, and natural gifts were not what decided the outcome.
Long centuries after both men had lived out their lives and formed their characters, God said, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." Jacob, with all his many faults, was a man of faith, and comes into blessing on the ground of grace. Esau, with many natural excellencies, had no fear of God, and misses the blessing though he was the older son by natural descent.
Commentators differ on how personally to take the word "hated." Malachi is where God speaks it, and one writer weighs what the prophet offers as proof.
The evidence Malachi gives is drawn wholly, not from God's action towards Esau himself, but from God's judgments on his descendants: "I have laid waste his hill country and left his heritage to jackals of the desert." And in other Scriptures we find that these judgments came on them because of their unrelenting hatred of Israel.
The quotation is aimed at a specific boast. If bloodline decides blessing, then Edom has as good a case as Israel.
But now go further down in your history, and you come to Jacob and Esau. If you go by descent, you must let in the Edomites on the same terms as yourselves... so your mouth must now be closed as to descent. God's own words stop it: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." He has chosen, by His sovereign right, to bless you, and your blessing depends on that alone... If we ask, "Is there unrighteousness with God?" and truly call Him into question, we are seeking to judge God instead of letting God judge us.
- Before. Before the twins were born, and before either had done good or evil, God said the older would serve the younger. The choice rested on the caller, not on the chosen.
- After. God said "Esau I hated" in the last book of the Old Testament, after both men had lived and Edom's history was plain.
- Unequal. Love to Jacob was free, with no cause in Jacob. Hatred of Esau had moral grounds. Choosing one man is not condemning the other in advance.
- Evidence. Malachi's proof is the ruin of Esau's land and descendants, judged for their unrelenting hatred of Israel. Commentators differ over how far the word touches Esau himself.
- Effect. If descent decided blessing, Edom would stand with Israel. So the boast in bloodline falls, and to ask "Is there unrighteousness with God?" is to try to judge the Judge.
What shall we say then? [Is there] unrighteousness with God? Far be the thought.
Paul has just spoken of God choosing one person and not the other, and that raises an obvious protest: is God fair? He puts the objection into words himself, rejects it flatly, and answers it from a moment in Israel's own history.
The objection comes from human nature, not from careful thought. Paul meets it with an event where Israel had every reason to expect death.
To these arguments the flesh may object that to choose one and not the other is unrighteous. Is there, then, unrighteousness with God? Far from it, says the Apostle. To answer this objection he points to one case in Israel's history. There it is plain that God acted in sovereign grace, and yet no one could charge Him with unrighteousness. He recalls the terrible sin of Israel when they made a golden calf and worshipped it. There can be no question about the unrighteousness of that act. They had broken the first command, and the penalty was death. Righteousness could have destroyed them all.
Notice what the question does to the person asking it. It swaps the roles of judge and defendant.
If we start to ask, "Is there unrighteousness with God?" and really mean to call Him into question, we are trying to judge God, instead of letting God judge us. Whenever someone questions the sovereignty of God, the soul is saying, in effect: I am the one to judge God, and God is not to judge me.
The people raising this objection owed their survival to the very principle they attacked.
The truth is that Israel was ruined at the foot of the mountain, the very place where they had promised to obey everything God commanded. And what did God say to Moses? "I will have mercy," and so on. So the sovereignty they disliked when God showed mercy to the Gentiles turns out to be everything to the Jew.
There is an order here that people usually get backwards. Effort does not produce mercy.
Mercy is an attribute of God Himself, part of the character of God which showed itself when sin came into the world. In Romans 9:14 we find it stated clearly and with care. Verse 16 guards it: blessing "is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs." Man says, "I will, I run, and so I get blessing." No; that is not the way. Mercy is the root; after mercy follows the will, then the running, then the doing of His commandments.
The wording of verse 16 here follows an older translation.
Paul does not stop at mercy. The same freedom that spared Israel ran the other way with Pharaoh, the king of Egypt.
But here a warning note is struck. God's sovereignty is like a two-edged weapon. God may show it in mercy. He may also show it in carrying out judgment. With Israel, guilty of the sin of the golden calf, He showed it in mercy. With Pharaoh, He showed it in hardening that king.
God's statement that He loved Jacob and hated Esau troubles many readers. The date it was written down changes how it reads.
But did you ever think it through, or find out where this statement about God's love was written? It is found, as we have already seen, in the last book of the Old Testament — Malachi. God does not record these words until thirteen hundred years after the men named had passed off the scene.
The last word here is not an argument. It is a comparison: God set beside you.
Do you think that God is less just than you? "What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means!" (Rom. 9:14). Is He less compassionate than you? He has revealed Himself in Jesus, and He "is rich to all who call upon Him" (Rom. 10:12). If He is sovereign, it is in compassion and mercy, while judgment is His strange work. We may rejoice and be glad in the first. The second we do not understand, so we leave it to Him who will do right in all things.
- Objection. The charge of unfairness comes from human nature. Press it, and you have taken the judge's seat over God, instead of standing under His judgment.
- Evidence. Paul answers from the golden calf. Strict righteousness would have wiped Israel out. Only His freedom to show mercy kept them alive.
- Irony. The objectors resented this principle when it reached the Gentiles. It was the one thing holding up their own place before God.
- Root. Mercy comes first. Willing, running and obeying follow it; they never produce it.
- Rest. One sovereignty shows mercy and carries out judgment. It belongs to the God revealed in Jesus. So we can leave what we cannot explain with Him.
For he says to Moses, I will shew mercy to whom I will shew mercy, and I will feel compassion for whom I will feel compassion.
Paul has just described God's freedom to choose, and someone objects that this makes God unfair. His answer is not his own argument. It is a sentence God once spoke to Moses, and the moment He spoke it settles the question.
He reaches for the one occasion when Israel had destroyed every claim they had. God answered by falling back on Himself.
To answer this objection, the Apostle points to one case in Israel's history. There God plainly acted in sovereign grace, and no one could charge Him with unrighteousness. He recalls the terrible sin of Israel when they made a golden calf and worshipped it. Of the unrighteousness of this act there can be no question. They had broken the first command, and the penalty was death. Righteousness could have destroyed them all. But what did God do? He fell back on His sovereignty and said, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." God falls back on the very principle the Jew objects to. Without it, all Israel would have been destroyed.
The people complaining owed everything to the very thing they complained about.
History and prophecy alike showed that the blessing of Israel hangs on God's sovereignty... So the very sovereignty they disliked when God showed mercy to the Gentiles proves to be everything to the Jew.
That freedom also lets mercy cross national lines:
Ruth the Moabite is a striking instance in Old Testament times of God's mercy shown outside the limits of Israel, the nation the Lord chose out of all others to be His own people. In this impressive example, the Lord acted on His own right to show favour where, when, and how He pleased.
Look at what the word "mercy" means. Everyone is guilty, so justice cannot explain any kindness God shows.
Once the shared guilt and ruin of every creature has been proved, justice is no longer the question in any display of God's favour towards them... By its very nature, mercy is controlled and directed by the will of the One who shows it. Nothing deserving in the person draws it out. Human misery is itself the natural effect of God's judgment against sin, so it cannot force mercy to act. We must look for its deep and blessed spring in the mystery of the love of God — in God Himself, whose name is Love.
The next verse draws the conclusion: it does not depend on human will or exertion. For Israel that was rescue, not cold doctrine.
How blessed then for Israel that it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy! Romans 9:16 states this principle in general terms: the question is not man's desires or efforts, but God's will. Besides, when we come to the facts of the case, we find that man neither wishes nor seeks for mercy. It is too late, then, for man to talk of rights. The truth is that man himself is all wrong, and righteousness rests on God having His rights.
Paul's argument moves on to Pharaoh, the king of Egypt. Commentators stress different sides of the pairing. One sees the same freedom working both ways:
God's sovereignty is like a two-edged weapon. He may display it in showing mercy. He may also display it in executing judgment. In Israel's case, when they were guilty of the sin of the golden calf, He displayed it in mercy. In Pharaoh's case He displayed it by hardening that king.
Another writer warns against a mistake people make here:
In truth, God's sovereignty is always on the side of mercy. Some people fix on one side of the truth and deny another that Scripture states just as strongly — that man is responsible to God. They sometimes go so far as to say that God elects the lost to be damned. Never was there a greater mistake.
The freedom in this verse is not cheap. Once God announced it, something had to happen to make it possible.
Only God can really say "I will". The moment God said that, the death of Christ became a necessity. How could God carry out His will which involved the showing of mercy apart from the cross?
- Occasion — God first spoke these words over a nation worshipping a golden calf. Strict justice would have wiped them out. Mercy enters where merit has collapsed.
- Freedom — the will of the One showing mercy directs it. Nothing we deserve draws it out. Its spring is in God Himself.
- Reach — the same freedom that spared Israel also reaches beyond Israel. The objector's complaint attacks his own only hope.
- Cost — "I will" is a word only God can say, and saying it made the cross necessary.
- Response — the self-righteous argue with sovereign mercy. The person broken over sin is glad it is free enough to reach him.
So then [it is] not of him that wills, nor of him that runs, but of God that shews mercy.
Paul has just quoted God's words to Moses about showing mercy to whom He will. This verse is his conclusion, and it settles where blessing starts: not in what a person wants or does, but in God.
The force of Paul's conclusion depends on when God first spoke those words.
When was it that 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"? It was when, on grounds of bare righteousness, Israel ought to have been cut off. God then drew back, so to speak, into His sovereignty, to spare Israel. Righteousness would have condemned them as they stood around their golden idol. How blessed then for Israel that it does not depend on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy! Romans 9:16 states this principle in general terms. The question is not man's desires or efforts, but God's will. Besides, when we come to the facts of the case, we find that man neither wishes nor seeks for mercy. It is too late, then, for man to talk of rights.
Paul's words may look back at the family history he has just told.
The words may hint at Isaac's well-known wish, which came to nothing, and at Esau's efforts to gain by the hunt, which failed too. They may hint at Jacob as well, who was faulty enough to lose everything by his trickery — except that sovereign mercy secured the promise to him. It is certainly the conclusion of grace against man's empty confidence in his own will and effort.
If mercy waited for people to want it, it would wait forever.
Man will have no mercy on himself. Man goes marching to everlasting woe. We can see thousands around us doing this — old and young… "So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy." This is grace, the free favour of God. He shows mercy to the man who has no mercy for himself. It is not man, the sinner, who chooses God. God chooses the sinner… God has chosen those who never would have chosen Him.
The same point can be put positively: what we could never begin, God begins in us.
God, by His Spirit, does for us or in us what we never would, or could, do for ourselves or by ourselves. The work from first to last is God's.
The verse sits between two examples, and the second one is Pharaoh.
But here comes a warning. God's sovereignty is like a two-edged weapon. He may display it in showing mercy. He may also display it in carrying out judgment. With Israel, guilty of the sin of the golden calf, He displayed it in mercy. With Pharaoh, He displayed it by hardening that king.
If will and effort do not produce blessing, does human choice matter at all? Commentators hold both facts together, even where they cannot see how they fit.
Let us by the grace of God firmly hold both of these great facts. God is sovereign in how He acts in grace. Man, though fallen, is a responsible creature, and God addresses him as one… So let us accept both, even if for now we cannot see far enough to work out how they fit together.
So who receives this mercy, and what should a person do about it?
But to whom is God pleased to show mercy? Certainly not to the self-righteous mockers, who by their very attitude deny their need of mercy. It is to the repentant — those who confess themselves sinners and call on the Name of the Lord in their extremity… God has sovereign title to show mercy, and man must bow to this divine sovereignty. Indeed, can anything do more good for man than being subject to his Creator?
Mercy is not only how the Christian life starts; it stays the footing underneath.
If mercy has declared itself, and He has spared us, we must still never forget that His estimate of what we are stands on record… The rainbow in the cloud declares His faithfulness to His promise. We stand on the ground of MERCY, and if we forget it, He does not… We look at the cloud; God looks at the rainbow. What grace is here!
- Occasion — God spoke those words to Moses while Israel stood beside a golden idol. Justice would have destroyed them. Mercy speaks at the exact point where merit is gone.
- Meaning — Human will and effort recall Isaac's wish and Esau's hunt earlier in the chapter. Both failed. Only mercy secured the promise.
- Reach — No one has mercy on his own soul. So God chooses those who would never have chosen Him, and mercy reaches the repentant who call on Him.
- Warning — The same sovereignty that spared Israel hardened Pharaoh. Mercy shown is never mercy owed.
- Response — Man stays responsible, and God stays sovereign. So the verse calls not for argument but for bowing, and for living on the ground of mercy.
For the scripture says to Pharaoh, For this very thing I have raised thee up from amongst [men], that I might thus shew in thee my power, and so that my name should be declared in all the earth.
God answers the charge that He is unfair in two ways. On one side stands mercy; on the other, power. This verse is the second half of that pair. What does it mean that God "raised up" a man, and is that man still responsible?
Paul does not write that God said this to Pharaoh. He writes that Scripture said it. One writer traces how Paul quotes Genesis and Exodus:
Then he treats all the history of Genesis as the word of God. He cites the account in Exodus too, first as declaring that God spoke to Moses, and then as to the history of Pharaoh. And here it is as Scripture says it. This is for Paul the same as God saying it.
The phrase does not mean God made a man evil. It means He lifted an already defiant man high, so that his fall would be seen by all:
God never makes a man bad. Pharaoh was already bad, and his resistance to God's most striking appeals made him worse. God brought him into the open. He raised him up from among men to such a height that his downfall would tell on consciences far and wide throughout the world.
Another writer draws out why the position mattered so much:
Had Pharaoh been one of the common people in Egypt, his stubborn heart would not have been brought publicly into evidence, but God raised him to a place of eminence... Every fresh expression of Pharaoh's stubborn will only brought out some fresh expression of the mighty power of God, and his pursuit of Israel only brought before men the mighty power that could dry up the Red Sea, save His people, and destroy Pharaoh and his host.
The order of events in Exodus matters. Mercy reached Pharaoh first, and the hardening from God's side is dated late:
Mercy had been within his reach, but he refused it again and again. God warned him six times about the folly of resisting Him, sending terrible plagues, but each time he hardened his heart. (Exodus 7:13 should read, "And Pharaoh's heart was hardened (or strong) so that he did not listen." The Lord did not harden him in judgment until chapter 9:12.) Then came that terrible word: "Indeed, for this cause I have raised you up, to show in you My power." If people despise privilege and mercy, God hardens their hearts, and uses them as beacon lights of His power and wrath.
Another writer explains how mercy itself could harden him:
The hardening of Pharaoh's heart was largely brought about by the very mercy shown to him... The sun that melts the ice may harden the clay. It is the same sun that does both.
If a decree alone fixed the outcome, no one could blame Pharaoh. One writer answers that charge:
If the word of God forms our minds, we shall find that God always holds man responsible. He judges and condemns him for his own sins, and not by any predetermined decree.
The same writer notes that even Israel's enemies reached the same verdict:
Israel's natural enemies drew this conclusion: the king was judged justly, because he had hardened his heart against the God of Israel. That holds whatever the Lord's secret purposes may have been, as Moses knew them.
The verse names a wider aim: God's name told out everywhere. The same writer finds goodness even in this judgment:
When God did raise up Pharaoh, the world at large was sunk in idolatry. Pharaoh was the head of what was probably the most idolatrous nation on the face of the earth. He also held a place where God's sovereign power, displayed in his case, would travel far and wide among the nations. Was there no goodness shown in the very fact that He was executing judgment "against all the gods of Egypt"?... In the case of Rahab, added to, no doubt, by other testimonies, we see how much it accomplished.
Pharaoh is only half of it. On Israel's side, sovereignty was the one door of escape left open:
If God had dealt in righteousness, all Israel would have been cut off. Nothing but the sovereignty of God could be a door of escape... this, on the side of mercy; on the side of judgment, Pharaoh served as an example. He was the enemy of God and of His people. He treated the claims of God with contempt and lifted himself up in pride against Him: "Who is the Lord, that I should obey him? I will not let his people go."
- Defiance first. Pharaoh had already refused to obey the Lord or to let His people go. God found him a rebel; He did not make him one.
- Raised, not made evil. "Raised up" means lifted high, so that a private stubbornness became a public lesson.
- Hardened afterwards. Mercy and warning came first. God's own hardening comes later in Exodus, after repeated refusal. The writers agree that the man stays responsible.
- Power on display. Every fresh act of Pharaoh's will drew out a fresh act of God's power, until the Red Sea settled the contest.
- The Name travels. The goal of the whole account was God's name told out through all the earth — and the case of Rahab shows how far the report reached.
So then, to whom he will he shews mercy, and whom he will he hardens.
Here Paul sets God's freedom to show mercy beside His freedom to harden. Two real cases stand behind the words: God spared a nation after open sin, and He ruined a king after open defiance. Is such a God still righteous?
The verse is a summary. Israel's own history had already shown both halves of it.
God had already shown the mercy in His dealing with Israel after they made the golden calf, and the hardening in the case of Pharaoh. The Apostle reasons from both facts to defend the sovereignty of God. That sovereignty lets the Gentiles in while Israel is set aside, and it is still the only foundation for Israel's own hopes… History and prophecy alike showed that Israel's blessing hangs on God's sovereignty. Israel was ruined at the foot of the mountain, where they had promised to obey all that God commanded… The very sovereignty they disliked when it was shown in mercy to the Gentiles is proved to be everything to the Jew.
The two cases are not one innocent and one guilty. Strict justice would have condemned the nation and the king alike.
Both were wicked — Israel and Pharaoh. Righteousness would have condemned both. He has mercy on one, and hardens the other, where plain righteousness would have condemned both. This is sovereignty. He proves Himself not only righteous — the day of judgment will prove that — but proves Himself God. This matters more than anything to us all: without it no one would be saved.
God showed Pharaoh real kindness first. He lifted plague after plague, and that mercy only made Pharaoh harder.
In setting up the golden calf, Israel did wickedly, and God in sovereignty showed mercy. Pharaoh also did wickedly, and God judged him. Where does the sovereignty of God come in here? Is it not seen in this, that again and again God acted in sovereign mercy by removing the plagues? But this mercy only became the occasion of Pharaoh hardening his heart.
Exodus records the order, and the count is exact.
It is true that God hardened Pharaoh's heart. But He did so only after Pharaoh had shown extreme and staggering arrogance by saying, "Who is the LORD, that I should obey his voice…?" (Ex. 5:2). And He did so only after Pharaoh had hardened his own heart again and again. In fact, the Spirit uses two different words in the original language and says no fewer than seven times that Pharaoh hardened his heart (Ex. 7:13, 14; 7:22; 8:15, 19, 32; 9:7) before saying that God hardened the heart of Pharaoh (Ex. 9:12).
The word "hardens" does not mean God makes anyone evil. It means He gives a man up to his own folly, and the man stays responsible.
God never made any man bad. But He may, and in some cases does, give people up to the consequences of their own folly and evil. That is, He hardens in judgment those who make light of His grace and reject it… Pharaoh grew more wicked the more patience God showed. In the end God, whom he had despised, blinded him in judgment and made him an example. All are responsible. Sin destroys the ability to obey God, not the responsibility.
Pharaoh is not the only case. The same thing happens to whole peoples.
Hardening came on him as a judgment, and in the end utter ruin. So then He has mercy on whomever He wills, and He hardens whomever He wills. On a large scale, it was so with Israel (Isaiah 6), and it will be so with Christendom (2 Thess. 2). Man is wicked and rejects God. God then, in His sovereign wisdom, can and does give men up to hardness… Notice too that while God hardens whom He will, He does not make men wicked; but He may take a wicked man to make an example of His justice in his case.
One objection comes at once: if God hardens, why does He still blame us? The answer turns the question back on the person asking.
Let every rebel against God beware, in case Pharaoh's fate becomes his own… People may say, if that is so, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" Did not Pharaoh resist God? Have you not resisted and refused God? "Who are you, O man, to answer back to God?"… Did not Pharaoh fit himself for destruction? The same is true of every sinner.
- Both guilty — justice condemned Israel at the golden calf and Pharaoh in Egypt alike. Mercy is the only reason their stories differ.
- Mercy first — God lifted plague after plague before He judged Pharaoh. The kindness Pharaoh despised is what hardened him.
- He hardened himself — Exodus says seven times that Pharaoh hardened his own heart. Only then does it say God hardened it.
- God's act, man's fault — hardening is a real judgment, but God never makes a man bad. Sin destroys the ability to obey, never the responsibility.
- Still true today — the same pattern ran through Israel, and writers warn that Christendom will follow it. So the verse is a warning before it is a puzzle.