Thoughts on the Doctrines of Grace Pastor Rob Wilkerson

Double, Double, Toil and Trouble!

The Troubling Issue of Double Predestination
April 11, 2003 I think that perhaps the toughest issue involved in a discussion of the doctrines of grace is centered on the subject of what is called doublepredestination. It is a difficult doctrine for first and foremost it flies in the face of emotion and preconception about what we think is or should be right and wrong. Second, it is claimed by many that there is just no biblical warrant for such an understanding. On the first count I have always been an advocate for casting off preconceptions and their consequent emotions when considering the subject of God. He doesnt fit any human mold of thought we try to find or make up for Him. This is the biggest enemy of solid Bible study and it must be eliminated. If we let how we feel determine what truth we will or will not believe, then our entire theological system is built on tossing waves. Emotions must never determine truth, and must never be allowed to color the truth for others. As Christians we must be death on this or else it will push Christianity to failure. Truth stands upon the nature of God and nothing else. That said, this subject must be looked at without the steaming-red glasses of emotional anger. What does the Bible say on this subject, if anything at all? Thats all that matters. Our emotions on the subject must then be subjected to the truth of Scripture. And youve probably guessed by now that my even bringing this up means that there must be something in the text with which we must grapple intellectually and mentally, but not emotionally. It may even mean a spiritual grappling, since for many there will be a splinter within the heart that just wont let them hear what is being said. If that is the case then humility is the need of the hour, and this only comes by a remembrance of how wretched we are, how darkened our minds have become as a result of sin, and how much pride really does lurk in the hearts of all Christians. Solve this issue before going further, I urge you. Surrounding the context of a bold statement in verse 13 of Romans 9 are a couple of emphatic statements regarding the sovereign election of God. First, according to verse 11, a choice was made regarding Isaac and Rebekahs twins, Jacob and Esau. It was a choice NOT made on anything they had done, because as the verse states it, for though the twins were not yet born, and had not done anything good or bad Thus, election stands not on the common understanding of foreknowledge, as if God looked down into the annals of the future and saw what each would do and elected on the basis of that. The text clearly stands against such thought. A choice was made BEFORE they ever did anything good or bad, indeed BEFORE they were ever
Grace Community Church Adult BSH

Thoughts on the Doctrines of Grace Pastor Rob Wilkerson

born. Therefore, we may conclude from this that Gods sovereign election doesnt stand on anything we do or do not do, whether good or bad. God makes a sovereign choice before we are ever born. But if the choice is not made based on our goodness or badness, what then is it based upon? The last half of verse 11 teaches us that it is based on Gods purpose according to His choicenot because of works, but because of Him who calls. Gods purpose is the reason for His sovereign election. Thats begging the question, isnt it! I feel the same way. Gods purpose really doesnt leave me with much of an explanation as to why He sovereignly elects apart from ones good or bad works. But thats it nonetheless, and Im in a position as a human, created by God, where I need to be satisfied with His purpose and not revolt. Besides, He is a good God and everything He does is right and just. Those two important truths should reorient your thinking on this matter before you read any further. Based on these two truths, that God sovereignly elects before a person is born, and that He does so based on His purpose, God sovereignly elected that Esau the older and rightful heir to Isaacs inheritance would serve Jacob the younger cheat who manipulated his brother out of his birthright and outright stole His brothers family inheritance and blessing. I dont get it either. What I especially dont get is that God evidently ordained the very means by which Jacob would get the blessing and thus fulfill the prophecy spoken about them. God sovereignly declared before they were born that Esau would end up serving Jacob, and the events that unfolded pointed to a sovereign God who had already ordained it all. Moving on to verse 13, we find a most troublesome passage: Just as it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau I hated. Be careful! Watch those steam levels! Get a hold of those emotions and that anger that is flaring up inside right now! This is in the Bible. I didnt add it there. It wasnt added there by some 6th century scribe either. It comes from the mouth of the Lord through the mouth and pen of the prophet Malachi. I have loved you, says the LORD. But you say, How have You loved us? Was not Esau Jacobs brother? declares the LORD. Yet I have loved Jacob; but I have hated Esau, and I have made his mountains a desolation and appointed his inheritance for the jackals of the wilderness (1:2-3).1 This is a powerfully injurious thought to the prideful heart. Paul is quoting Malachi to make his previous point concerning the promise God made in Genesis 25:23. Gods promise to make Esau serve Jacob is made equal to
The commentary on an apocryphal text is noteworthy also. In 2 Esdras (4 Ezra) 3:16, it was said of God, you set apart Jacob for yourself, but Esau you have rejected (NRSV). Grace Community Church Adult BSH
1

Thoughts on the Doctrines of Grace Pastor Rob Wilkerson

Gods loving Jacob and hating Esau. A frightening thought, but a truthful one indeed. Now, what this means is that God had set His love on Jacob before Jacob was ever born or before he had done anything good or bad. And God set His hatred on Esau before Esau was ever born or before he had done anything good or bad. God made a choice of love and hatred before the two of them came to draw their first breaths. The immediate thought is to jump up a claim that the word hate here doesnt really mean that. The Greek word is emisesa (evmi,shsa from mise,w) which in fact means: hate, despise, disregard, be indifferent to.2 And it is the very same word used by Jesus in Matthew 6:24 where He discusses the hating of ones enemy as opposed to loving them and caring for them. To be fair, there is the Hebraistic understanding of the term which could mean to love less or to prefer.3 We are all familiar with the text of Luke 14:26 where Jesus teaches that unless we hate our relatives we cannot be His disciple. The word hate is often interpreted there as being to love less, expressing a single-minded focus and loyalty to Christ. This is certainly allowable in that context. But I doubt it is allowable here in Pauls text. And even if it were, it doesnt really lessen our trouble for us because the point of the text is that God set His affection on Jacob and withheld it from Esau. Or, if we so choose to say it this way, God loved Jacob but loved Esau less. Either way it still doesnt alleviate the truth that God in some way shows enough love to one person so as to bless them, but doesnt show that same love to another so as to curse them, as evident from the original quotation in Malachi 1:2-3 where God lays their land to waste, tears down their buildings and pouring out His anger on them forever. Thats pretty strong stuff! And in diabolical opposition to love. This then is the kind of hate God showed to Esau and is therefore the kind of hate Paul is referring to in Romans 9:13. That said, there is another text that verifies this teaching in Scripture. It is found in a text already mentioned: Romans 9:22. In response to the question as to whether or not the potter can use his lump of clay to make vessels of honor and vessels for common use, Paul asks, What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? The key word used here is prepared (NASB). It is the Greek word katertismena (kathrtisme,na from katarti,zw). The word normally has the positive use of preparing, making ready, arranging, equipping. And in one
Newman, Barclay A. A Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament. New York, NY: United Bible Societies, 1971. mise,w. In BibleWorks 4.0, Hermeneutika Bible Research Software (Big Fork, MT: 1999). Friberg, Timothy and Barbara. Analytical Lexicon to the Greek New Testament (ANLEX), mise,w. In BibleWorks 4.0. Grace Community Church Adult BSH
3

Thoughts on the Doctrines of Grace Pastor Rob Wilkerson

reference it means to create, with the implication of putting into proper condition (Heb. 11:3).4 And it is in the middle/passive form. For those who know Greek, you know this presents an immediate problem. The connotation of the word depends on which one we go with. Let me put it this way. If the verb is in the middle voice, then Paul is saying that these vessels of wrath prepared themselves for destruction. But if it is in the passive, then someone else prepared the vessels of wrath for destruction, and in the context the only someone that could be is God. So which one is it? If it is middle, then double-predestination is ousted from the text, because the vessel of wrath himself would be responsible for his own destruction. But if it is in the passive, then we are forced to grapple with this double-predestination stuff once more. Let me lay out for you straight. The great John Chrysostom, the goldenmouth preacher and early church father, believed that it was middle.5 The great John Stott of our day interprets it this way also.6 And as much as I hate to be the one to disagree with these two giants of our faith, I feel I must, but on solid exegetical grounds. The problem with this view is that the middle voice is so rare as to make this argument very unconvincing for me personally. The passive, on the other hand, is incredibly common use throughout the NT. So good exegesis rules in favor of the passive leaving us with a doublepredestination conclusion. What about the context? Consider the verse we just analyzed a moment ago, verse 13. There God is the one loving Jacob and hating Esau. Then in verse 15 which teaches that God has mercy on whom He wills and hardens whom He wills. Pharaoh is used as an example of one whom God hardened. Then in verse 21, God, the potter, makes some vessels for honorable use and some for dishonorable use. So throughout the context then, God is at work, loving and hating, showing mercy and hardening, molding for honor and molding for dishonor. The truth of doublepredestination is seen in this text as God doing both to mankind. He is not presented here as the kind of God who only does good things to His people, leaving the rest behind or passing them by. He is seen as hating them, hardening them, and preparing them for destruction. Remember! I didnt say this stuff! Dont get mad at me! This is the God of Scripture open for all to see, and I dont see how Im misinterpreting these texts from their ordinarily plain meaning. In fact, to make an interpretation other than what their plain meaning suggests would be twisting them, I believe.

Louw, J.P. and E. A. Nida. Louw-Nida Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains. 2nd Edition. New York, NY: United Bible Societies, 1988. katarti,zw. 5 Homilies on Romans 16 (see 9:22-24). 6 Romans: Gods Good News for the World. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1994. Page 272. Grace Community Church Adult BSH

Thoughts on the Doctrines of Grace Pastor Rob Wilkerson

Wait a minute! Wait just a minute! The word prepared in the next verse dealing with vessels of mercy is in the active voice. Doesnt this point to the fact that Paul only intends to point to Gods direct dealing when it comes to vessels of mercy? And doesnt that then mean that Paul doesnt intend to play up Gods role in the vessels of wrath? Good questions. And the answers are yes and no respectively. Paul does intend to point to Gods direct dealing with the vessels of mercy. I can agree with that statement only if the only is taken out. For Paul is not only intending to point out this one thing. That is why the answer to the next question is no. The passive very clearly indicates an outside agent involved, and given the context just observed in verses 13, 15 and 21, that agent is undoubtedly God. Therefore, God is involved directly in both, rather than in just mercy. But why the change in voice, you ask? Perhaps the use of the passive voice in contrast to the active for prohtoi,masen signals that the plan to destroy the wicked is asymmetrical with the plan to save the vessels of mercy. In any case, one cannot by exegetical means rescue God from willing the fate of the vessels of wrath. This too was part of His plan, and thus double predestination cannot be averted.7 This is nothing new. For those of you who are finding it hard to see Paul as a theologian who believed in this kind of stuff, you need to know that his theology is merely reflective of the standard Jewish understanding of his day. An ordinary Jew had no problem at all with this thinking process. They considered God to be a sovereign God who determined not only who He would save and who He would condemn, but a God who determines every single event that has ever happened and will ever happen. Texts from the Qumrani caves (Dead Sea scrolls), Apocryphal material, and Midrashic teachings reveal this to be the case. For example, consider this text from 1 QH 15:12-22:8 And I, because Your understanding, I know that [the righteousness of man] is not in the hand of flesh [and] that man [is not] master of (13) his way and that mankind cannot strengthen his step. And I know that the inclination of every spirit is in Your hand (14) [and that] You have ordained [the way of every man] before creating him. And how can any man change Your words? You alone have created (15) the just and established him from his mothers womb unto the time of good will that he may be preserved in Your covenant and walk in all Your wayAnd You have raised up (17) his glory from among flesh whereas You have created the wicked [for the time of] of Your [wr]ath and have set them apart from their mothers womb for the Day of Massacre(19) You have created all [them that despise] Your [will] to execute judgment against them (20) in the eyes of all Your works that they may
Schreiner, p. 522. My edition of the Dupont-Sommer translation The Essene Writings from Qumran. Oxford, England: Oxford Press, 1961.
8 7

Grace Community Church Adult BSH

Thoughts on the Doctrines of Grace Pastor Rob Wilkerson

serve as a sign, and wo[nder unto] everlasting [generations] that [all] may know Your glory and awful might. If my bet is right, thats probably the first time youve ever read anything from the Qumran texts. (Sounds a little like Bible, doesnt it?) But there are many other texts as well that teach the same thing.9 Overall, the Jewish milieu was an ordinary acceptation of double-predestination. Weve come a long way baby! Well, I think Ive said enough on this subject to give you the impression that I believe double-predestination is a biblical doctrine and that it is taught extremely clearly here in Romans 9 and that it was nothing new for Paul in his personal theology as a Jew. And I also think Ive said enough to give me cause to run and hide out in a cave for a while! I know some of you are mad! I know youre thinking, My God isnt like that! My God would never create someone for the express purpose of sending them to hell! Well dear sister or brother, I would encourage you to read the rest of the text and inform yourself better. Verse 22 tells us very clearly not only that our God does this, but also why He does this. There seem to be two reasons, inseparably connected and interrelated. First, verse 22 tells us that God predestines some to eternal destruction in order to demonstrate His wrath and make His power known. Second, verse 23 tells us that God does this in order that He might make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory. In verse 22, God creates some for destruction in order to make His power known and demonstrate His wrath. Again, Pharaoh was just such a one. God Himself stated, For this very purpose I raised you p, to demonstrate my power in you, and that My Name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth (v. 17). John Piper states, Moreover, in view of the parallels between Rom 9:22 and 9:17, a most natural suggestion is that Pharaoh serves as an example of a vessel of wrath fitted for destruction. And since Pauls inference from the Pharaoh story is that God hardens whom he wills (9:18), the most natural suggestion from the context is that fitted for destruction (9:22) refers precisely to this divine hardening.10 In verse 23, Paul tells us that an interrelated purpose of preparing some persons to be vessels of wrath is that God makes His power known to the
9

If you want to read more, see 1QS 3:15-16; 4:24-26; 11:10,11; 1 QH 7(15):16-26. See also Apocryphal writings: Sirach 33:7-13; Apoc. Abr. 22:1-5. 10 Piper, John. The Justification of God: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Romans 9:1-23. 2nd Edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1993. Page 212. Grace Community Church Adult BSH

Thoughts on the Doctrines of Grace Pastor Rob Wilkerson

vessels of mercy by showing them the infinite and eternal riches of His glory that belong to them simply because of His sheer mercy. Both 22 and 23 then prove that it is all about God from beginning to end. From the beginning of mercy to eternity, and from the beginning of destruction to its end, God means to display His power, make His Name great, demonstrate His glory among all the nations of the earth. And creating some persons on which to display His eternal wrath seems a suitable option to the Potter who has the right to make such vessels from the lump of sinful humanity which in its entirety deserves eternal destruction anyway. Herein, then, is the truth of double-predestination. Ooooh, I know what youre going to say! What about personal responsibility! If God sovereignly chose to hate Esau then why does God hold him responsible for his sins?!!!! Youre right on one point the personal responsibility one. I beg of you to realize the biblical truth that in the Pauline view of predestination, human responsibility is never, ever lessened. I think he has made that clear enough in chapters 1-3 where Jews and Gentiles alike stand under the judging hand of God because of their own sin. However, I also beg of you to be of humble mind and realize that both truths are equally emphasized in Scripture and that this means that this issue is ultimately a mystery that neither you nor I can fully or humanly comprehend. We just dont have the stuff it takes to completely understand these truths. But that doesnt negate our responsibility to study them since they are revealed to us by God in His Word. So hows your attitude doing so far? Tom Schreiner in his commentary on Romans, makes a good point for you to consider here: We dare not conclude that human decisions are a charade, insignificant, or trivial. But we must also beware of a rationalizing expedient that domesticates the text by exalting human freedom so that it fits neatly into our preconceptions.11 So true! (Thanks Dr. Schreiner! It helps coming from someone else!) But wont this doctrine of double predestination cause the elect to become prideful and lose the wonder of their salvation? That seems to be a pretty legitimate question. However, consider them in light of the context of Romans 9. First, on the criticism that the elect will grow prideful, Paul answers that in 11:17-24 teaching them that such pride will result in them being cut off from the tree. Paul warns those who are chosen not to be presumptuous and abandon their faith les they too are cut off from the people of God.12 But on the criticism that the elect will lose the wonder of their salvation, the very context of Romans 9 itself indicates that double predestination does just the
1 11

Schreiner, Thomas. Romans. Baker Exegetical Commentary of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1998. P. 501.
1 12

Ibid. Grace Community Church Adult BSH

Thoughts on the Doctrines of Grace Pastor Rob Wilkerson

opposite. Indeed it actually makes known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory (v. 23). Therefore, the vessels of Gods mercy through election will become earnestly contemplative on the fact that they could have been prepared as a vessel for destruction (v. 22), but by Gods sheer grace were removed from that threat. This doctrine then makes the elect cry Why me! to God, reeling in shock and wonder that God saved him and not the other guy. It makes one so intimately aware of their own sinfulness as they look at another who is without mercy and consider their sinfulness. What difference is there between us, O God?! Nothing. And that was the original point back in verse 11. Theres nothing good or bad that separates you, but only Gods sovereign choice to love you and hate (or love less) the other. This doctrine makes you acutely aware of your own unmeritorious standing before God, realizing that you had absolutely nothing to do with Gods setting His affection on you. He did it because it was part of His purpose. And He didnt do it for the other person because that was part of His purpose too. But this doctrine also makes the elect cry Send me dear Lord! With the lack of understanding as to why God did it for them and not for others, the heart surges with urgent desire to go and tell them of Gods mercy so that perhaps Gods sovereign election might include them too in His purpose. We dont really know, do we? So that means weve got to get out and tell them all! Now! Yesterday! I mean, if we dont really know why He showed us mercy in the first place, and if we are keenly aware of nothing different between us and the unsaved guy, then we really dont know if God will not save the lost guy after all, right? Its the biblical logic of double-predestination that smashes the criticisms leveled against it. It demands evangelism and missions. It demands that others be told because we really dont know what Gods ultimate plan and purpose is for that person. Its not about us! Its all about Him! Its all about the glory due His holy name! Those words from my buddy Steve Camp (Desiring God, 2002) ring true in my ears yet again. This doctrine, like all the other doctrines of grace, point back to the first two lessons we studied together in this series on the Doctrines of Grace. The glory of God is the end of it all. And the sovereignty of God, or the right of God to do with His creation what He wills, is what guides that glory. In other words, He will by any and all means necessary do whatever He must and use whatever He must, or whoever He must, in order to glorify Himself and make His saving name known throughout all the earth. So let the lost serve as a warning to your soul, that you could have been there were it not for grace. Let it make you hate pride with all your being, since you had nothing to do with any of this! And let it make you long to drink more deeply of His grace and mercy toward you. Lost people should make
Grace Community Church Adult BSH

Thoughts on the Doctrines of Grace Pastor Rob Wilkerson

you glory in His salvation! And again, this doctrine should motivate you and compel you to snatch the lost into the kingdom, pouring out your energy to see them saved from the destruction that awaits them. Who knows but that God may have mercy on thembut only if you tell them! Amen.

Grace Community Church Adult BSH