Romans Chapter 9

vs 11

Now we're in a bit of a pickle with this argument. The argument goes "Neither of the twins had done anything good or bad, but God chose one over the other". The point being that God is a god of election - he chooses for himself a people, and by the nature of that choice, some people are rejected.

But it's the idea of "neither having done anything good or bad" that I want to take issue with today. Because although the twins hadn't done anything yet, God surely knew what they would do, right? So does this mean that there's a difference between God knowing something and people doing it? Why would it matter whether they had done anything yet or not, considering God is atemporal and knows all things?

vs 12

I think this verse is probably the key. The point God is wanting to make that entering his Kingdom is not a matter of works, but a matter of God's election. And to us, who are temporal, this point is made clear when God chooses a child whom we have not seen do anything wrong or rihgteous.

vs 13

Of course, when it later turns out that Jacob is a conniving bugger, then we are only further surprised at God's choice.

vs 14

The idea that God chooses one over another based on nothing else other than his own choosing might to us seem unfair. But Paul wants to make it clear that this is not so.

vs 15

Unfortunately for us, he chooses to do this using God's words in Exodus which you could be forgiven for thinking came out of the Quran and not the Bible. I think we get back to the God principle - that things we would generally belittle or despise when done by a human are not the same when done by the eternal, atemporal, all powerful God. When a human does things for their own glory and honour, we call them names. When God does it, he's really the only one who deserves it, so it's sensible. When a human kills someone to make a point, we call them brutal or heartless. When God does it, he is the ultimate arbiter of life and death, and so has the authority to do such things. When a human decides to have mercy on one person, and no mercy on another, we think that's judgemental or unfair or prejudice. When God does it, I suppose it is his right.

vs 16

And when we look at it from God's view, we see a level of justice and equity that we perhaps cannot see without an eternal view - the idea that God has taken the responsibility away from humanity and put it on himself.

vs 17

Of course, this might not look super fair to Pharoah, but we also must remember that Pharoah did make his own choices (well, unless you don't believe in free will at all in the gospel). The idea of humanity expressing free will and God making declaritive statements about their actions being his and not theirs are not fundamentally paradoxical. It's funny how throwing God into an equation suddenly makes a lot of things work. Not that I am proposing a "God of the Gaps" ideology. More just a logical reasoning model that allows for perceived impossibilities to be bypassed by omnipotence.

vs 18

and I think what Paul leaves unsaid here is "and God gets glorified either way".

vs 19

And so here the paradox raises its ugly little head. It's a fair question.

vs 20-21

And Paul gives the biblical answer. No, it's not all that satisfying. But it has been repeated through Ecclesiastes, Job and elsewhere. Yes, there are bad things. Yes, God is in control. Yes, you cannot resist his will. Yes, you still get blamed and are still sinful. No, you do not get an answer to this.

God has never revealed the inner truth of these statements. At least he's consistent.