Chapter IV: The Universal Mercy of God and His Beneficent will Toward All
CHAPTER IV: ON THE UNIVERSAL MERCY OF GOD
AND HIS BENEFICENT WILL TOWARD ALL
The four classes of arguments against an absolute decree: First, the beneficent will of God, who seeks the salvation of all.
§ 57. Against this opinion we set forth, first, the beneficent will of God by which He earnestly seeks the conversion and salvation of all. Scripture has borne witness to this beneficent will with its words, Christ with His tears, and God Himself with His oath. So, then, we draw a conclusion as follows: Those whom God wants to be converted to Himself and to be saved have by no means been rejected from God and destined by Him to eternal damnation with an absolute hatred. But now, God wants all people to be converted to Him and be saved. Therefore He has rejected none of them from Himself and destined none for eternal damnation by an absolute hatred or decree. We shall prove the minor premise with several statements of Scripture.
1 Timothy 2[:4]: “God wants all to be saved.”
§ 58. The apostle writes, 1 Tim. 2:4: “God wants all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” If this will of God is true and serious, then He surely did not make an absolute decree about the perdition of some people.
The objections of our adversaries.
They object: “The statement of the apostle is to be understood as a reference to kinds of individuals, not to individuals of those kinds,” in this sense: God desires some of every kind of people to be saved. (Thus Beza, Resp. 2 ad coll. Momp., p. 192; Martyr, on Romans 9; Danaeus, Sent., part 1, dist. 46; Whitaker, Orat. on this passage delivered at Cambridge.)
§ 59. We respond. Let us look at the context of the passage. The apostle is urging that supplications, prayers, etc., be made for all people ([1 Tim. 2:]1). Then he adds to this genus a certain species by which he does not remove the totality of the genus but is merely showing that we must pray especially for kings and magistrates for the sake of the public tranquility (v. 2). Afterward he adds the reason for his exhortation: that this is good and acceptable before God (v. 3), who wants all to be saved (v. 4). From this we draw the following conclusion: God desires those to be saved for whom we ought to offer prayers, supplications, etc. Yet we should pray not only for some from every rank of people but also in general for all people. The matter itself shows this, and Calvin and Marlorat admit this in their commentaries on this passage. They say: “Paul orders prayers to be made not only for the faithful but also for the entire human race.” Calvin (on John 17): “We ought to include the whole human race in our prayers.” Therefore God wants not only some from every order to be saved but also all in general. If the apostle were speaking only about individual orders and not about each and every individual of all orders, then he would not have said in v. 2: “for all who are in high positions,” but “for some, so long as they are placed in that order.” Yet he wants prayers to be made for all individuals and for every person in the order of magistrates, so why not for everyone in the rest of the orders?
§ 60. The apostle sets forth a second argument in [1 Tim. 2:]5–6 from the universality of the merit of Christ. For whomever Christ paid the price of redemption, God desires seriously that we pray for them and for their salvation. And yet, as we shall show later [§ 107], Christ gave Himself as the price of redemption not only for some of all orders but also for all people. Therefore prayers are to be made not only for some of all orders but also for all; God seeks the salvation of all, not just of some.
§ 61. Piscator of Herborn counters in this way: “If the apostle were to command that we pray for all people, then he would be ordering us to pray against the will of God, because God does not want the reprobate to be saved, and Christ (John 17:[9]) excludes them in His own prayer.” We respond. This is an inverse way of proceeding. First, one had to prove that preconceived notion about the absolute reprobation of some before he accordingly limited the universality of the apostle’s statement. Afterward he would then have to prove his idea about the prayer of Christ. In addition, in this way one departs from Calvin, Bullinger, and Marlorat, who concede that one should pray for all people.
§ 62. Others explain these words as follows: “God wants all to be saved, namely, those who come to the knowledge of the truth.” We respond. The apostle is making both assertions: that God desires all men to be saved and also that He desires all to come to the knowledge of the truth. Finally, the cause that many do not come to the knowledge of the truth does not lie in God but in themselves. We shall discuss this matter in greater detail later [§§ 75–79, 186–89].
2 Peter 3[:9]: “God does not want any to perish.”
§ 63. Let us bring out another statement of Scripture about the beneficent will of God, 2 Pet. 3:9: “God does not want any to perish but that all should return to repentance.” Piscator of Herborn (Anal.) counters: “This is to be understood as referring to the elect alone, because the apostle is writing to the faithful Jews whom he considered elect because of his love.”
We respond. Peter is writing to the entire congregation of the called in which there were many reprobate, and we must not limit a general statement of the apostle on the basis of preconceived notions. We draw the conclusion in this way: Whomever God wants to return to repentance, He wants none of them to perish. That is what Peter is saying here. Yet God wants the reprobate, too, to return to repentance, as Paul testifies in Rom. 2:4–5: “Do you presume upon the riches of God’s kindness and forbearance and patience? Do you not know that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? But by your hard and impenitent heart you are stirring up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath, when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed.” You see, the “forbearance” of God which Peter mentions invites to repentance even those who by indulging securely in their sins gradually heap up the wrath of God so that all of it is at last brought forth as from a storehouse. Therefore He also does not simply and absolutely want the reprobate to perish.
Romans 11[:32]: “God has enclosed all in unbelief that He may have mercy on all.”
§ 64. Rom. 11:[32]: “God has enclosed all in unbelief that He may have mercy on all.” Whomever God has enclosed in sin—that is, whomever He accuses with the word of the Law because of sin and convicts as guilty of eternal damnation (Gal. 3:22)—they are the ones to whom He also wants to be merciful, and He offers His grace in the word of the Gospel to them. But now, God accuses and convicts each and every individual human being of sin in His Law. Therefore He offers His grace in the Gospel to each and every one. Hence Piscator’s gloss is frivolous, for he explicates τοὺς πάντας [“all”] in this passage as particular, “as only the elect of the Jews and Gentiles.” This runs contrary to the entire context of this chapter, but especially opposes v. 32. In this chapter the apostle is discussing the rejection of the Jews which happened to them because of their unbelief, and he adds that their downfall has resulted in the salvation of the Gentiles. Therefore he finally admonishes both not to taunt each other arrogantly, given the common lot of both and the boundless grace of God available to both, provided that they embrace the Gospel and believe in Christ. Suppose that τοὺς πάντας [“all”] meant only the elect. The apostle’s argument would be weakened and the sin of Adam would extend more broadly than the benefaction of Christ, which was offered to the entire world through the voice of the Gospel.
The tears of Christ.
§ 65. The tears of Christ mourning the destruction of Jerusalem are described in Luke [19]:41. They are an obvious indication that Christ is hardly pleased with the temporal and eternal perdition of the Jews. For tears are “the legates of grief,” as Cyprian says (Letter 7, bk. 2). They are “the blood of the wounded spirit,” as Brenz says (on John 11).
The objections of our adversaries.
Some object that “temporal destruction is being discussed here.” We respond. Yet the Jews were afflicted not only with temporal but also with eternal punishments because they neglected the time of the salutary visitation. Furthermore, if God does not delight simply and absolutely in the temporal punishments of men—so that the prophet says, “In the reproach of men God does His alien work” (Isa. 28:21)—all the more will it be alien to His nature to sentence some men to eternal punishments out of absolute hatred.
§ 66. Others object that “Christ is speaking and acting as man.” We respond. But would Christ (“who is in the bosom of the Father and has made His will known to us,” John 1:18) be ignorant of such a decree, if indeed one had ever been made? Is the will of Christ more inclined to the salvation of man than is God Himself, who is “love” (1 John 4:8)? Would He who made “all things known” to His disciples (John 15:15) still be ignorant of that supreme source of the salvation and perdition of man?
The oath of God.
§ 67. The oath of God, who bears serious witness of His beneficent will toward all men, is described in Ezek. 33:11: “I live; I do not want the death of the wicked, but that he be converted and live.” Heb. 6:16–18: “Men indeed swear by something greater than themselves, and in all their disputes an oath is final for confirmation. So, when God desired to show more convincingly to the heirs of the promise the unchangeable character of His purpose, He interposed with an oath, so that through two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to be proved false we have a very firm comfort.” God said that He desired all men to be saved. If this was not enough, Christ testified to it with His tears. If this was not enough, God confirmed it with His solemn oath. Jerome (vol. 2, Letter 46): “He swears so that if we do not believe God’s promise, we may at least believe in His oath for salvation.”
§ 68. Some object: “God does not desire the death of a sinner to the extent that He wants his conversion. Yet experience testifies that God does not touch the hearts of all in order to convert them. The statement is indefinite” (says Bucanus, De praedest., p. 401) “and must be limited to those to whom the grace of conversion is given.”
We respond. On the contrary, He indeed desires the conversion of all, for it is for that reason that He sets forth the Word to them. Furthermore, He does not want to act without means but wants to convert people and correct the hardness of their hearts through the Word and Holy Spirit. Those who “stubbornly reject this word” (Acts 13:46), who “despise the counsel of God” (Luke 7:30), who “resist the Holy Spirit” (Acts 7:51)—these, I say, deprive themselves of the benefit of conversion by their own fault and “judge themselves unworthy of eternal life” (Acts 13:46). Note the emphasis in these statements. The Pharisees and lawyers are said to have despised the counsel of God by not being baptized by John. What was this counsel? Surely it was that through the preaching and Baptism of John God wanted to call them to repentance and to the kingdom of the Messiah. An absolute decree and plan about their perdition cannot be meant in this passage. It would have had to be said that they did not despise that plan but fulfilled it. The Jews are said to resist the Holy Spirit; surely, then, the Holy Spirit desired to work in their hearts. If conversion were denied them by an absolute decree, they could not be said to resist the Holy Spirit because instead they would have obeyed that decree made from eternity. Finally, the Jews are said to judge themselves unworthy of eternal life. Therefore they were not excluded from it by any absolute decree of God, but they judged themselves unworthy of it, or, what is the same, because of their raging contempt for the Word and their virulent blasphemies, they were reprobated by God and judged unworthy of eternal life.
§ 69. Others object: “That address of the prophet must refer only to those who, though they were wicked at that time, nevertheless would at some point be converted and thus were in the number of the elect.” Piscator of Herborn (on Romans 9, p. 196): “God does not desire the death of the sinner, namely, of the one who repents.”
We respond briefly. Ezek. 18:[31–]32: “Why will you die, O house of Israel? says the Lord. I have no pleasure in the death of anyone.” Therefore He also does not want the perdition of those who die and perish.
§ 70. Others object: “It is talking only about temporal death.” We respond. Death is common to both penitent and impenitent. But now, that death is being treated which can be avoided through conversion. Ezek. 33:11: “Be converted, be converted from your evil ways, for why shall you die, O house of Israel?” Second, that death is being treated which is “the wages of sin” (Rom. 6:23). Yet not only temporal but also eternal death is the wage of sin. Finally, if God does not absolutely and simply delight in the temporal death of men, all the less does He simply and absolutely desire anyone to be punished with eternal torments.
§ 71. Others object: “This is to be understood as meaning the revealed will; meanwhile, with His hidden will God desires that some not be converted nor live.” We respond. This will attribute the worst kind of hypocrisy to God, as if with His kindest promises He bears witness that He wishes well for people, while nevertheless He secretly wishes them evil. Far be this from the Holy One of Israel! Let us speak and think about God as He has revealed Himself in His Word. We should not even imagine that there is in God another hidden will contrary to the one revealed in the Word, especially as regards the matter of our salvation. In fact, “the whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27) is declared to us in His Word, namely, that which refers to our salvation as well as to that plan and “the grace which was given to us in Christ before time began, and now has been manifested through the wonderful appearing of our Savior” (2 Tim. 1:9–10). We shall say more about this in its own place [§§ 78–80].1
§ 72. Accordingly, let this be firmly fixed: Scripture with its clear language, Christ with His tears, and God with His oath bear witness to the beneficent will by which God earnestly desires the salvation of all, and therefore it is false to say that out of absolute hatred He has simply condemned some to eternal death.
The statements of the fathers regarding God’s beneficent will toward all.
§ 73. The fathers write as follows about this mercy of God, who earnestly seeks the salvation of all people. Irenaeus (bk. 4, ch. 76):
God sent [messengers] to extend invitations to the wedding feast [Matt. 22:1–14]. Those who did not obey Him deprived themselves of the royal banquet. The light does not fade away because of those who have blinded themselves but continues just the way it is, while those who have become blind by their own fault stand in darkness, etc. Because all good things are with God, those who flee from God of their own volition cheat themselves out of all His good things and consequently fall into the just judgment of God; for those who flee from peace will justly live in punishment, and those who have fled from the light will justly dwell in the darkness. Moreover, just as in this temporal light those who flee it deliver themselves up into darkness—and so become their own cause of lacking light and of dwelling in darkness, but the light does not cause this situation—so it is for those who flee the eternal light of God, which contains all good things: they are for themselves the reason that they inhabit eternal darkness. For having deprived themselves of every good thing, they have become their own cause for such a dwelling.
Ambrose (De vocat. gent., bk. 2, ch. 1) discusses three points which one should grasp in the proposed question and lists the following in the first place: “God wants all people to be saved.” Chapter 8: “Whether we consider the recent times or the middle ages or the first days, we reasonably and devoutly believe that God wants and has always wanted all people to be saved,” etc. Augustine (Ad art. sibi falso impos., art. 16): “It is not the will of God that one person should perish. Rather, those who fall from piety fall not because of the work of God but of their own will. They are not driven to fall nor are they cast out so that they leave. Nevertheless He who cannot be deceived foreknows that they will fall and depart from Him.” Primasius (on 1 Timothy 3): “There is one God of all, and for that reason He desires that all whom He has created be saved.” Arnobius (on Psalm 90): “Surely God wants all people to be saved, but everyone becomes wicked by his own choice.” Bernard (Sermon 5 in natali Domini): “God removes the nursery of compassion from Himself because He judges and condemns us when somehow we force it to happen, so that mercy seems to proceed from His heart in a manner far different than punishment.” Bernard again (Sermon 1 in purif. Mar.): “The mercy of God is offered to all and is placed in common. No one lacks it unless he refuses it.” Gerson (De remed. contra pusillan.): “Chrysostom’s statement is very true: God grieves, so to speak, when He must condemn a man through His own righteousness because of that man’s unrighteousness, since man has been created so nobly as the image of God and has been redeemed at such great expense.”
The testimonies of our adversaries themselves.
§ 74. In fact, our adversaries themselves—as if at times forgetting themselves and as if aroused by the light of truth striking their eyes even though closed—teach the same thing. Bullinger (on 1 Timothy 2): “God wants all men to be saved. He excludes no one from salvation.” Hyperius (Methodi, bk. 1, p. 251): “God wants all men to be saved; yet the fact that many of these do perish is the fault of those who perish. The fact that many are saved is the gift of the Savior.” Robert Rollock (on Romans 8, p. 178): “God desires the salvation of the reprobate because salvation in itself is a good thing, but He does not decree it. In fact, on the contrary, He decrees their death and destruction. Therefore His will extends more broadly than His decree.”
§ 75. “And yet” (say those who contradict us), “if God earnestly desires that all be saved, all would indeed be saved, because ‘God does all that He pleases’ (Ps. 115:3). ‘Who resists His will’ (Rom. 9:19)?”
We respond. God wills some things simply and absolutely, other things under a certain condition and by certain means. Because the things He has willed [θελητὰ] of the first type are absolute, they always happen. The statements cited earlier should be taken as references to those. Because the things He has willed of the second type are limited by a certain condition and by certain means, they do not occur unless that certain condition is met and those certain means are applied. God wants the life of the sinner and wants it earnestly; yet He also wants the conversion of the sinner through the Holy Spirit and the Word. So if the sinner rejects that Word and resists the Holy Spirit and thus is not converted, God desires the just condemnation of the sinner.
§ 76. These [statements] are not contrary to each other, because God is not only merciful but also just. From all eternity God foresaw the fall of the first human beings and the destruction of the whole human race which followed it. He earnestly pitied all people, and, moved by that mercy, He made a decree about the restoration of the human race through His Son and through the word of grace that calls all to this kingdom of His Son and calls them to share in His benefits. On the other hand, because our most merciful God also saw that only some would accept those means of salvation, which were appointed for all, and that the rest would reject them and stubbornly refuse the plan of God concerning their salvation, He made a decree about saving only those who persevere in their belief in Christ through the efficacy of the Holy Spirit by means of the Word and about condemning those who by their stubborn contempt for the means [of salvation] judge themselves unworthy of eternal life.
§ 77. A magistrate wishes well for all his subjects, but he also desires that they conform to honorable laws. If any disobediently transgress the laws which have been passed, he afflicts them with due punishments and rewards only the obedient. There is no contradiction of his will here. Suppose a physician comes to a city infected with disease. Suppose he offers to all the precious medicine for curing. If later any spurn the means of healing and do not actually take it, it is their own fault; the will of the physician remains inviolately and wholly beneficent toward all the inhabitants of the city. But why do we use foreign examples? In Luke 14[:12–24], Christ shows this by the example of a householder who prepares a great feast and earnestly desires that all who have been invited be present and enjoy his goods. After they despise his beneficence and invitation, however, he wills and decrees that none of them should taste the feast which he had prepared.
The distinction between the antecedent and the consequent will.
§ 78. From this spring flows the distinction between the antecedent and the consequent will of God (a distinction which is used by Chrysostom (vol. 4, sermons on the Epistle to the Ephesians); Damascenus (De orth. fid., bk. 2, ch. 29; and Contra haeres. Manich., bk. 1). Anselm says it this way: “The one will is of mercy; the other is of justice.” The Scholastics say: “According to His first will, God desires all men to be saved, but according to His secondary will, He does not desire the reprobate man to be saved according as he is such.” ([See] Thomas, [ST,] part 1, q. 19, art. 6; Bonaventure, Sent., bk. 1, dist. 47, art. 1, q. 1.) Even Hubert Sturm (De praedest., p. 181), who otherwise follows Calvin, embraces this distinction.
§ 79. Moreover, this division does not distinguish His will in itself, which is one and indivisible in God just as His essence is one. Rather, it distinguishes its twin respects. In the antecedent will, the respect is for the means of salvation according as they were ordained on God’s part and are offered to all. In the consequent will, the respect is for the same means, but according as men accept or neglect them. The antecedent will is so called because it precedes consideration of the obedience or disobedience of men and consists of that simple respect by which the beneficent will of God manifests itself equally to all men. The consequent will of God is so called because it follows consideration of the obedience or disobedience of men and consists of that determined respect according as the same will relates to men who in actuality either follow or neglect that arrangement [τάξιν] of means. We judge that this is a sufficient explanation of this distinction, and through this explanation one can untangle the threads of most of their arguments, if it is correctly applied. Briefly, the basis for this distinction is the mysterious balance [temperamentum] of God’s justice and mercy.
§ 80. The beneficent will of God, who earnestly desires the salvation of all men, conflicts directly with that fiction about the absolute reprobation of some and thus is denied openly by the supporters of that fiction. Beza (p[art] 2, Resp. ad coll., p. 194): “This I say: that there has never been, is not now, nor ever will be a time when God desired, now desires, or is going to desire to have mercy on every single individual.” Rennecher (De praedest., p. 114): “Those who imagine to themselves that God wants to be merciful to all and desires everyone to be saved are entirely mistaken and commit a great sin.”
An exposition of Romans 9.
§ 81. Of course, they usually provide many points to confirm their opinion. Nevertheless because they appear to have established the strength of their case especially on Romans 9, we judge that it is not beside the point for us to add a brief exegesis of it.
§ 82. The scope of the apostle is to oppose the offense which could arise for the devout from the rejection of the Jewish nation, so that their hope could sail safely past this reef. Indeed, the apostle explains the reasons for their rejection, which are: (1) Their carnal confidence by which they distribute election and the blessings of the Messiah and His heavenly kingdom only by carnal birth and stock, which is treated in [Romans] 9.(2) Their contempt for the righteousness of God offered to them through the preaching of the Gospel of Christ and confidence in their own righteousness, which is treated in [Romans] 10. (3) Their astonishing unbelief, which was followed by their hardening and blinding by the just judgment of God, which is treated in [Romans] 11. Nevertheless the sequence of his treatment is refutative, for the apostle introduces the Jews as clamoring against him in this way, Rom. 9:6: “If God rejects our people, then the Word of God has failed; that is, the promise made to our fathers Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob will be in vain.” They were seeking the logic of their argument from the form of the covenant which God had made with Abraham, Gen. 17:7: “Therefore I shall be your God and the God of your descendants after you.” The apostle denies the logical sequence, and to the proofs they cited in favor of it he responds that most of the Jews are not of the seed of Abraham today, because only those who are the children of the promise are numbered among his seed. However, because most Jews now are not children of the promise—that is, because they do not believe the Gospel—they, too, are not counted among the seed and consequently do not possess the promise.
§ 83. The Jews generally denied the major premise—namely, that only those are numbered among the seed who are the children of the promise—because they believed that they were the children of Abraham by virtue of natural propagation. In John 8:39 they boast: “Abraham is our father”; but as Christ Himself responds in the same place: “If you were the children of Abraham, you would be doing his works,” and, as it says in John 1:[12–]13: “The children of God are not born of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.” And finally it says in Rom. 4:12: “Those who walk in the footsteps of the faith of Abraham” are his real children. So also here, the apostle is responding to the boasting of the Jews and says that only the children of the promise are counted among his seed. This he confirms with two types: the first, from Ishmael and Isaac (Rom. 9:9); the second, from Jacob and Esau (Rom. 9:10–13).
§ 84. The application is as follows. If Isaac alone, whom Abraham begat of Sarah by the miraculous grace of the promise, is the full and true seed of Abraham and Ishmael is not (though he, too, was born, according to the flesh, of the same Abraham), then it follows that they are not considered children according to the flesh or on the basis of carnal birth but according to the promise, namely, as it is apprehended by faith. But indeed the former statement is true, as is clear from Gen. 21:12: “Through Isaac shall your descendants be named.” Moreover, Isaac is “the son of promise” (Gen. 18:10). Therefore the second statement is also true.
§ 85. Lest the Jews be able to say, “Ishmael was born of a slave and Isaac of a free woman,” and that they [the Jews] are the children of the free woman, the apostle thus adds another type from Jacob and Esau. Given those who are born of exactly the same parents, if they still are not both sons of the promise but the one is preferred to the other, then it follows that they are not considered children according to the flesh but according to the promise. But the first is true, as is clear from the example of Jacob and Esau. Therefore the latter is also true.
§ 86. Lest anyone say that Jacob was preferred because of his works, the apostle adds four further conditions: (1) the boys were not yet born; (2) they had done nothing either good or bad beforehand; (3) not because of works; (4) but because of His call, that His purpose of election might continue. Therefore the first proposition returns: The true spiritual seed of Abraham is reckoned not on the basis of carnal birth nor on the basis of the merits of works, but on the basis of God who calls and by virtue of faith which embraces the divine promise. Accordingly, even if the Jews who trust in their carnal birth and in their works be rejected, the promise of God still has not failed. Augustine (De civ. Dei, bk. 16, ch. 35): “The apostle Paul wants this to be understood as a great indication of grace because, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad, the younger is elected without any good merits and the older is rejected [reprobato]. Yet, without doubt, both were alike as far as original sin is concerned, and neither had any actual sin.”
The explanation of the words: “Jacob I loved, Esau I hated” [Romans 9:13].
§ 87. Those who explain the apostle as referring to the absolute election of Isaac and Jacob to eternal life and the absolute rejection of Ishmael and Esau to eternal damnation sin in many ways:
(1) They disregard the scope of the apostle’s argument.
(2) The prophecy, which should be taken properly as referring to the descendants of Jacob and Esau (as is clear from Gen. 25:23 and Mal. 1:2–3), is referred by them to persons. In the account of Jacob’s return from Mesopotamia in Genesis 32–33, it tells that when Jacob met his brother, he did not call him his “lord” once but honored him seven times by bowing his head and body and eagerly watched for his favor, etc. Therefore that prophecy cannot be interpreted to refer to the person of Jacob, but to his descendants.
The story is told of Amaziah (2 Kings 14:7) that he crushed the Edomites, who very often revolted from the rule of Judah (2 Kings 8:22). Regarding this, Augustine narrates (Quaest. in Genes., q. 83):
The Lord answers Rebekah: “There are two nations in your womb, and in your womb two nations will be separated; one people will defeat the other, and the elder will serve the younger” [Gen. 25:23]. In the spiritual interpretation, the carnal people among the people of God are signified by the elder son and the spiritual people by the younger son. That is the way the apostle speaks: not that what is spiritual is first, but what is animal comes first, then the spiritual. Generally this passage is interpreted thus: in Esau is symbolized the broader people of God, that is, the people of Israel according to the flesh; but in Jacob is symbolized Jacob himself according to his spiritual progeny. Even literally in history, however, this word is found fulfilled when the people of Israel (that is, the younger, Jacob) conquered the Edomite children (that is, the nation which Esau fathered) and made them tributaries through David. This is what they were for a long time until King Jehoram, under whom the Edomites rebelled and cast off from their neck the yoke of the Israelites, just as it was written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated” [Mal. 1:2–3].
(3) What was said about the outward privilege of dominion and the promise of the land of Canaan is taken by them literally and simply as a reference to election to eternal life.
(4) They entangle themselves in absurdity, for if this passage is taken to refer to an absolute election to eternal life and an absolute reprobation to eternal damnation, it follows that not only Jacob was absolutely predestined to eternal life but also all the people who descended from Jacob. And not only was Esau simply rejected from the grace of God but also the whole people who were to come from him.
(5) They cite uncertainties as certainties, for nothing certain can be affirmed about the damnation of Ishmael and Esau. Esau met with his brother at the grave of their father (Gen. 35:29) and thus returned to grace with him.
(6) They conflict with Scripture, for how can Esau and Ishmael be reprobated to eternal damnation absolutely with no respect for unbelief and impenitence, since both were taken into the covenant of God by circumcision and thus the righteousness of faith was confirmed for them by this “sign” (Rom. 4:11)?
(7) They wrap themselves in many difficulties, for if this is the meaning of the divine oracle (that Jacob was elected to eternal life by an absolute decree and that Esau was rejected from it by an absolute decree), how would their devout parents have regarded this son of theirs? In what frame of mind would Rebekah have embraced in her bosom this hellish firebrand which was sentenced absolutely to the punishments of eternal fire?
(8) They corrupt the genuine meaning of the words, for “hating” here should not be taken positively for an absolute hatred, but negatively, so that it is the same thing as esteeming less, namely, in the conferral of external privileges and benefits. (Cf. Gen. 29:[30] Ps. 78:67–68; Prov. 13:24; Matt. 6:24; Luke 14:20; 16:13; John 12:25.)
§ 88. However, if they wish to refer the apostolic text, as a type, to election (which Bucanus does, De praedest., ch. 8, p. 552), let it be done correctly, namely, in this way: Just as the external privilege of dominion and the promise of the land of Canaan were not dependent on carnal propagation nor on the merits of works but on the free mercy of God, so the heritage of eternal life does not belong to those who rely on their carnal birth from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob or who seek their salvation in works, but to those who place all their hope solely in the free favor of God, who elects.
§ 89. However, the following application should not be made. Family, birth, and the merits of works accomplish nothing for election; therefore faith also does not apply to it. [This application should not be made:] (1) Because the same thing in every detail could be inferred about justification. (2) In fact, because the apostle mentions the promise, surely—from the nature of correlatives2—faith, which embraces the promise, is included.(3) In addition, the apostle contradicts this argumentation in Rom. 9:31–32: “Israel did not reach the Law of righteousness. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith.” Rom. 11:20: “They were broken off because of their unbelief.” Verse 23: “If they do not continue in their unbelief, they will be grafted in.” (4) Just as God in time welcomes no one to eternal life with His favor and mercy except him who believes in Christ, and persecutes no one with hatred or condemns him unless he does not believe and repent (John 3:18), so also He has proposed and decreed from eternity that He would give eternal life to those who believe in Christ but would condemn those who hold Him in contempt.
§ 90. Therefore the promise of love, adoption, and eternal life depends on election through grace and free mercy because of the intercession of Christ; they are all elected whom God foresaw were going to believe the Gospel and persevere in the faith. All the rest who desire to receive the promise of the inheritance of the kingdom of God not on the basis of the promise of grace but on the basis of carnal prerogatives and their own merits are thrown out into eternal destruction (as Alexander of Hales is correct in writing, commentary on Romans 9).
The explanation of the words: “I shall have mercy on whom I have mercy” [Romans 9:15].
§ 91. In [Rom. 9:]14, the apostle sets forth another objection of the Jews: “Is there injustice on God’s part?” It is as if they were saying: “If the entire basis for salvation depends solely on the free love of God, and there is no prerogative for the Jewish people, no merits of works, so that even idolatrous Gentiles, outsiders to the nation of the Israelites, are called to the kingdom of the Messiah and to the inheritance of the heavenly kingdom, then it follows that God is unjust.” The apostle denies this conclusion in v. 15 and adds the reason from Moses: “I shall have mercy on whom I shall have mercy.” The mercy of God is purely free, owed to no nation nor to any works.
§ 92. Do not infer from this that God absolutely and simply does not want to have mercy on some, for this would contradict Scripture and the apostle himself (Rom. 11:32). Nor does this argument hold its ground: “God’s mercy is purely free; therefore it is absolute toward some few people.” After all, we could infer the same thing about justification: it is purely free—nevertheless we are not justified except by faith. The mercy of God, who saves human beings, cannot be considered except in Christ, and thus people obtain it because of Christ. For this reason it is said, 2 Tim. 1:9: “God has freed us and called us with a holy calling, not because of our works but because of His own purpose and grace, which was given to us in Christ Jesus before the ages began.” Eph. 1:6: “We are loved in the Beloved.” Hence it follows, v. 4, that “God chose us in Christ.” In turn, people are not in Christ except through faith. Therefore this mercy of God must be interpreted and explained as referring to believers.
§ 93. All Scripture confirms this explanation, for if you ask, “On whom, then, does God want to have mercy?” Scripture leads us to Christ and shows that in Him we are pleasing to God and have been loved and elected to eternal life. Indeed, God sent His Son to the entire world, and through the preaching of the Gospel He offers His mercy to all people. But because very many despise and reject this free mercy offered to them in the Gospel, hence, with respect to application and actual enjoyment, only those who persevere in faith in Christ become partakers of the love of God to eternal life.
§ 94. Also, because the apostle intended to vindicate the righteousness of God from the tongues of the detracting Jews, therefore he proves that the Lord is everywhere just, whether He saves people out of His mercy or hardens and condemns them with His just judgment. As an example of hardening, he cites Pharaoh [cf. Rom. 9:17], the great persecutor of the church. In this passage the apostle is not making a determination on whom God wishes to have mercy and whom He wants to harden. However, all of Scripture shows that in His beloved Son God desires to have mercy on all who believe, and that He wishes to harden those who stubbornly reject His Word in order to manifest His righteousness among them, something which the example of the Pharaoh also shows.
The hardening of Pharaoh.
§ 95. When Moses and Aaron came to him at God’s command and said, Exod. 5:1: “Thus says Jehovah: ‘Let My people go,’ ” [Pharaoh] responded, v. 2: “Who is Jehovah that I should heed His voice and let Israel go? I do not know Jehovah nor shall I let Israel go.” Here you see his extreme ungodliness and Epicurean contempt of God. Despite the fact that many signs and wonders were presented before him, he was unwilling to ease any of his cruelty or to let the children of Israel go. Therefore as a punishment for his antecedent wickedness and arrogance, the Lord says, Exod. 7:3: “I shall harden Pharaoh’s heart.” Hence hardening is related to the consequent will of God or to His just judgment by which He punishes antecedent sins. We have explained earlier how God hardens: “He hardens not by implanting malice into the hearts of men, but by deserting them and surrendering them to Satan.” Augustine (83, q. 68):
Concerning Pharaoh, there is a simple response: because of his earlier merits with which he afflicted the strangers in his realm, he became worthy of having his heart hardened so that he did not believe the manifest signs of God who was command ing [him]. Therefore from the same lump—that is, of sinners—He brought forth the vessels of His mercy whom He would aid when the children of Israel called upon Him and the vessels of wrath by whose punishment He would instruct them, that is, Pharaoh and his people. Although both groups were sinners and consequently belonged to the same lump, He had to deal with those who had lamented to the one God for help differently than those whose unjust burdens caused the lamenting.
Ibid.:
Was it hidden from Pharaoh how much good his lands had received through the coming of Joseph? Therefore it was his calling to recognize Joseph’s deeds, that he might treat the Israelites mercifully and not be thankless for them. But since he refused to obey this calling and practiced cruelty against those to whom humane conduct and mercy were owed, he earned the punishment of having his heart hardened and his mind blinded so much that he would not believe so many great and obvious signs of God. Because of this, the people could be instructed by his punishment—either of being hardened or of his final visible drowning. For by afflicting them, he earned both his unseen dullness and his visible drowning.
(See our disputation On Providence [Commonplace IX], § 119.)
§ 96. It is clear from this that those words which the apostle quotes from Moses in [Rom. 9:]17 describe the determination of God, who is directing the arrogance of Pharaoh to a certain end. In the Hebrew it reads: “I have caused you to stand.” Tremellius and Junius have: “I have caused you to stand up.” Münster: “I have preserved you; I have made you stay.” That is, I am unwilling to destroy you instantly because of your wickedness. The Septuagint reads: διετηρήθης ἕως τοῦ νῦν [“You have been maintained until now”]. Calvin has rendered it in the same way in his commentary on Exodus. Ambrose and Chrysostom (on Romans) translate it: “I have preserved you,” just as Prov. 16:4 says that God “makes the wicked person for the day of trouble.” On that passage Ludwig Lavater writes: “On the basis of these words one should not conclude that God created the wicked man to be wicked, for a wicked man as such is not of God but of his father the devil. Nor is he speaking about creation, but about His governance by which He governs the souls even of the wicked so that they act toward His glory.” Those are his words, which should likewise be understood as referring to determination, not as if God drives the wicked man to evil acts.
§ 97. There are some who wish to conclude from this passage that Pharaoh was created, ordered, and driven by God to sin by refusing to let the people of Israel go, to bring upon himself temporal and eternal punishments for the praise of divine justice. (For example, Piscator of Herborn writes, Anal. 185: “ ‘I have stirred you up,’ that is, I have stirred your heart to resist My commandments.”) Those people: (1) Conflict with Scripture, which bears witness that God neither wills sins nor drives people to them and that God wants all people to be saved. (2) They conflict with the account of Moses, which bears witness that God called Pharaoh through the preaching of the divine Word to the fellowship of the church; warned him through Moses and Aaron about future punishments; set forth to him something like a preaching of repentance in events [realem quasi poenitentiae concionem] by means of astonishing miracles and punishments that preceded his final destruction; and invited him with His “long-suffering” to earnest repentance (Rom. 2:4). (3) They confuse the efficient cause and the end,3 for Moses and Paul are not speaking about the efficient cause, as if God wanted Pharaoh to be wicked and arrogant in order to display His own glory; rather, [they speak] about the salutary end to which God wished to direct that stubborn hardness of Pharaoh, namely, that by overthrowing so great and powerful a ruler and by freeing the Israelites from slavery to Pharaoh and leading them away with His mighty hand the Lord might display His own power and show forth the glory of His name to be seen by the whole world. (4) They do not have the correct idea about the purpose of creation, “for God created no one to perish,” as Augustine proves (Ad art. sibi falso imp., art. 3). (5) They confuse the just punishment of hardening with the unjust fault of a hardened heart.
[The explanation of the example of a potter.]
§ 98. The third objection of the Jews follows in [Rom. 9:]20. If God does not have mercy on all equally but hardens some, why does He still complain about their obstinacy? First, the apostle sharply rebukes human temerity: “Who are you, to answer back to God?” It is as if he were saying that the creature should not demand an account of the deeds of its Creator. He later clarifies the matter with the example of a potter, v. 21: “Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honor and another for reproach?”
§ 99. The application is as follows. As the potter has the power to fashion out of one and the same lump some vessels for honor and some for dishonor, so God is not unjust if He prepares vessels of mercy for glory and very tenderly tolerates vessels of wrath suited for destruction to show His wrath and to make known His power. The apostle states this with precisely these words, which move from the lesser to the greater. If one cannot accuse the potter for making a vessel for dishonor out of material that does not fight back, all the less can one accuse God of injustice for taking away His grace from people (such as Pharaoh) who insolently resist Him, and for surrendering to Satan for hardening that workmanship which fought back against its Maker, and for discarding it unto destruction.
§ 100. The following kind of application should not be made: “As the potter creates out of the same lump some vessels for beauty and some for menial use, so God creates some people, predestined by an absolute decree, for salvation and, on the other hand, creates some people, rejected by an absolute decree, for damnation and destruction. Such an application conflicts with:
(1) The context of the apostle’s text, for the apostle does not say that God fashions vessels for wrath but that “He tolerates with much patience the vessels of wrath [already] furnished for destruction” [Rom. 9:22]. But now, that which someone tolerates with much patience he does not himself create. Augustine says it well: “God does not make but comes upon vessels of wrath; He does not come upon but creates vessels of grace.”
(2) Scripture, which interprets God’s “long-suffering” by which He endures the vessels of wrath in such a way that through it “God invites to repentance” (Rom. 2:4). Therefore He wills that they no longer be vessels of wrath. How, then, did He fashion them [thus]? Hosea 13:9: “Your destruction is of yourself, O Israel.” How, then, will God be the efficient cause of that “fashioning for destruction”?
(3) The very words of the apostle. They are called vessels of wrath; but now, it is known that “it cannot be called the wrath of God except when the iniquity of man is believed to have preceded it,” as Fulgentius says (Ad Monim., bk. 1). How, then, can there be room for the notion that out of absolute hatred God creates some people to be vessels of wrath?
(4) The rules of comparisons, for as the rule of Chrysostom goes: “It is not necessary to interpret an example in all respects,” etc. The potter deals with mud which lacks consciousness and does not resist his will. Can we really also say this of human beings, some of whom resist the Holy Spirit, despise the counsel of God, and reject the Word? The potter is angry with neither vessel, whether prepared for honor or for dishonor. And yet the apostle says about people fit for destruction that they are “vessels of wrath” [Rom. 9:22].
(5) The article of creation, for man was created after the image of God, and part of this was the gift of immortality. The article of redemption, [for] the Son of Man came to save what had been lost. The very nature of God, who is not angry with His own, proper work (Wisdom 11:[24], etc.).
(For more on Romans 9, see Mentzer’s analysis in Disp. Gissens., vol. 1; and in Schroeder’s recently published explanation of [Romans 9].)
1 See also On the Nature of God (1625 Exegesis, Commonplace II), §§ 265–84.
2 See above, p. 143 n. 2.
3 On “efficient cause,” see above, p. 11 n. 1; on “end,” see above, p. 40 n. 10.