Some may be interested in this comment Romans 9:13.
(edited for length)
Additional Reflections on Election and Reprobation
As is well-known, this passage (Rom. 9:13) is considered a prooftext for the doctrine of predestination: election and reprobation.
Predestination is God’s eternal purpose whereby he has foreordained whatever comes to pass (Eph. 1:11).
Election may be defined as God’s eternal purpose to cause certain specific individuals to be
in Christ the recipients of special grace, in order that they may live to God’s glory and may obtain everlasting salvation (Luke 10:20; Acts 13:48; Rom. 11:5; Eph. 1:4; 2 Thess. 2:13).
Reprobation is God’s eternal purpose to pass by certain specific individuals in the bestowment of special grace, ordaining them to everlasting punishment for their sins (Rom. 9:13, 17, 18, 21, 22; 1 Peter 2:8).271
Although both of these decrees are equally ultimate, it would be wrong to say that they are co-ordinate in every respect. For example, although sin is indeed the meriting cause of the punishment mentioned in the definition of the decree of reprobation, faith is not the meriting cause of the salvation to which the definition of the decree of election refers. Also—to quote from my published translation of Dr. H. Bavinck’s
Doctrine of God272—“In a certain sense, the fall, sin, and eternal punishment are included in God’s decree and willed by him. But this is true
in a certain sense only, and not in the same sense as grace and salvation. These are the objects of his delight, but God does not delight in sin, neither has he pleasure in punishment.”
The question is often asked, “How was it possible for a Loving God to ordain certain individuals to everlasting punishment?” A more logical question would be, “How was it possible for a God whose righteousness demands that sin be punished, to ordain some individuals to everlasting life and glory?” Surely “the wonder of it all” is the substitutionary death of Christ!
The Westminster Confession of the year 1647 has this to say about Election and Reprobation:
God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established—Ch. iii, I
Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to his eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of his will, hath chosen in Christ, unto everlasting glory, out of his mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving him thereunto, and all to the praise of his glorious grace.—Ch. iii, V
The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby he extendeth or withholdeth mercy as he pleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign power over his creatures, to pass by, and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice—Ch iii, VII
A couple additional matters should not be omitted:
a. “The reprobate receive many blessings, which do not result from the decree of reprobation, but from the goodness and grace of God. They receive many natural gifts: life, health, strength, food, happiness, etc. (Matt. 5:45; Acts 14:17; 17:28; Rom. 1:19; James 1:17, etc.). Also with respect to the reprobate, God does not leave himself without witness. He endures them with much longsuffering (Rom. 9:22). He causes the gospel of his grace to be proclaimed to them, and has no pleasure in their death (Ezek. 18:23; 33:11; Matt. 23:37; Luke 19:41; 24:47; John 3:16; Acts 17:30; Rom. 11:32; 1 Thess. 5:9; 1 Tim. 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9).”273
Cain was a reprobate. Of this there can be no doubt (1 John 3:12; Jude 11). Yet, how tenderly God addressed him! (Gen. 4:6, 7).
b. There is a problem that must be faced. Our Creeds, as has been shown, proceed from the infralapsarian position, according to which those people who were destined for glory were chosen out of the state of sin and destruction into which they had plunged themselves; and those destined for perdition were, by God’s decree, left in that state. The question, however, arises, “Why did God at all allow the fall to take place?”
To that question there is no answer, except it be that of Deut. 29:29, “The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever …” And that of Job 11:7, 8,
Can you by searching fathom God?
Can you probe the limits of the Almighty?
They are higher than the heavens—what can you do?
Deeper than Sheol—what can you know?
Permit me to quote once more from my translation of Bavinck’s
Doctrine of God, this time p. 396:
Round about us we observe so many facts which seem to be unreasonable, so much undeserved suffering, so many unaccountable calamities, such an uneven and inexplicable distribution of destiny, and such an enormous contrast between the extremes of joy and sorrow, that anyone reflecting on these things, is forced to choose between viewing this universe as if it were governed by the blind will of an unbenign deity as is done by pessimism; or, upon the basis of Scripture and by faith, to rest in the absolute and sovereign, yet—however incomprehensible—wise and holy will of him who will one day cause the full light of heaven to dawn upon these mysteries of life.
Among the many objections that have been raised against the doctrine of election and reprobation, and particularly against the view that Rom. 9:13 supports this doctrine, are the following:
Objection a. Election, yes; reprobation, no! Neither Rom. 9:13 nor any other biblical passage teaches reprobation.
Comment. That Scripture does indeed teach both election and reprobation has been shown, See above, p. 320. Besides, election and reprobation stand and fall together. Those whom the Lord does not elect he rejects. God’s counsel is all-comprehensive (Prov. 16:4; Eph. 1:11).
Moreover, when God elects a person, he not merely decides to cause him to enter heaven at last, but guides him all the way from conception to glorification. David proclaims this truth in Ps. 139:16, which, in rhyme, is as follows:
Ere into being I was brought,
Thine eye did see, and in thy thought,
My life in all its perfect plan
Was ordered ere my days began.
Now the believer does not live in a vacuum, and between his life and that of the unbeliever there is no Chinese Wall. The life of the elect and that of the non-elect are so thoroughly intertwined—at play, in school, in the place of businesss, in factory, in government, etc.—that any divine plan that affects the elect must also affect the non-elect, without canceling human accountability in either case. A half plan is no plan at all. Many a battle has been lost because this or that small (?) item had been excluded.
Objection b. The divine oracle (Mal. 1:2, 3), quoted by Paul in Rom. 9:13, really means, “Jacob have I loved intensely, but Esau have I loved less.”
Comment. The verb used in the original for
to hate can indeed have the meaning
to love less. See N.T.C. on Luke, pp. 734, 735. The question is, “Does it have that meaning
here (Rom. 9:13)?” Clearly, it does not! The context of Mal. 1:2, 3 is one of the judgment, punishment, indignation: “… Esau have I hated, and made his mountains a desolation … They will build, but I will throw down.” Also, when Esau receives his father’s “blessing,” that blessing amounts to what might almost be called a curse. Correctly translated, it begins as follows,
“Away from the fatness of the earth will be your dwelling, and away from the dew of heaven from above” (Gen. 27:39). In fact, the “blessing” was of such a negative nature, and the deception by Jacob so painful, that Esau hated Jacob because of what had happened, and threatened to kill him. Conclusion: “loved less” will not do for Mal. 1:3 or for Rom. 9:13. These passages refer to reprobation, nothing less.
Objection c. Gen. 25:22, 23 and Mal. 1:2, 3 do not refer to individuals, Jacob and Esau, but to nations, Israel and Edom.
Comment. Though it is true that in Gen. 25:22, 23 the text turns quickly from babes to nations, nevertheless the starting-point has to do with persons, not nations. The words, “Two nations are in your womb” can, of course, not be taken literally. The meaning is, “The two babes within your womb will become rival nations.”
The Malachi context is similar. Here too the starting-point is certainly personal: “Was not Esau Jacob’s brother … yet I loved Jacob but Esau I hated.” Paul had every right, therefore, to apply these passages to persons, as he did.
Objection d. The doctrine of a twofold predestination—election and reprobation—is wrong because Jacob is always Esau also, and Esau is also Jacob; or, again, in each of us there is a Jacob and an Esau, etc.
Comment. Can anyone really believe that this is actually what Scripture is saying in these passages?
Having examined the objections, the result is that the doctrine of divine election and reprobation, based, among other passages, on Rom. 9:13, stands. The arguments against it are shallow and fallacious. See also the excellent “Paper” by F. H. Klooster, “Predestination: A Calvinistic Note,” in
Perspectives on Evangelical Theology, Grand Rapids, 1979, pp. 81–94.<sup>[1]</sup>
William Hendriksen and Simon J. Kistemaker,
Exposition of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans,
