Sermon Tone Analysis

The Justice of God

By what standard does fallen man and modern Americans measure God’s justice?

This is an epistemological question.

Every claim to truth is a claim of knowledge.

It is the Christian who is supposedly the prejudiced one when it comes to his claims to knowledge because he assumes the Bible to be true, to be what it claims to be: the Word of God.

But the modern man who begins with his own autonomous nature and establishes his reason as the unprejudiced and valid interpreter of God and the world has in fact assumed far more.

The Greek word for injustice is adikia, an activity which is unjust, unrighteous, doing what is unjust.

Here is the claim: the fall of humanity demonstrates God’s righteousness because God cursed man for sinning.

But since this was part of God’s plan, doesn’t that make God unrighteous in some way?

Paul’s answer is NOPE.

BACK to the Argument: God chose Jacob over Esau on the basis of his own purpose for his own glory and not because there was anything in them or about them or anything they would do or had done.

Would Paul’s question make sense if God had chosen Jacob based on his foreknowledge that Esau would sell his birthright?

Nope.

The question wouldn’t make sense at all.

The question only makes sense if God’s election is unconditionally grounded in his own decree.

“For” is offering elaboration on Paul’s point.

Thus verse 15 must be taken seriously as an argument that explains why God is not unrighteous to choose some and reject others regardless of their works (so esp.

Piper 1993: 75–89, 121–22).

How does this constitute an answer to the objection that God is unrighteous?

God is righteous because he is committed to proclaiming his name and advertising his glory by showing his goodness, grace, and mercy to people as he freely chooses.

The righteousness of God is defended, then, by appealing to his freedom and sovereignty as the Creator (cf.

Murray 1965: 25; Käsemann 1980: 267; Hafemann 1988: 46).

The notion that his mercy is conditioned upon the faith of human beings (so Abasciano 2011: 177–83, 186–87) reads into the text what isn’t there.

God’s mercy is granted without any conditions, as the flow of thought in this chapter clearly demonstrates.

God’s righteousness is also trumpeted by the appeal to his mercy.

No human being deserves his mercy.

God’s Election Does NOT Depend on Man

God’s mercy does not depend on the one willing.

God’s mercy does not depend on one running.

What is Paul saying?

God’s election depends on God who has mercy on whom he desires.

It does not depend on the willingness or the actions or activities of human beings.

The conclusion Paul draws from this is: It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy (lit.

‘So therefore it is not [a matter] of the one who wills or the one who runs but of God who shows mercy’).36

Once again Paul stresses the divine prerogative in dealing with human beings—showing mercy to whomever he will.

There is no injustice involved if God chooses to bestow the blessings of the gospel on some Jews and not on others.

You cannot receive him unless you believe in His name.

And you cannot believe in his name unless you are born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

Those receive Christ are those who believe in his name.

These were the ones who were born of God, not of men.

In other words, the only way to have faith and believe in his name is to be born again.

Regeneration comes prior to believing in the name of Christ.

This is why faith is a gift from God.

Again v. 17 explains or proves v. 16.

Now the conclusion:

SO THEN…what is the conclusion of all this?

The conclusion is God’s free choice to have mercy on whomever he wills and whomever he wills, he hardens.

Objection: If people only believe if they are chosen by God to believe, how is this fair for everyone else?

They are only rejecting God because God himself has in some sense, willed it to be so!

EXACTLY!

This question only makes sense if you are feeling the tension right now.

Paul recognizes that defending his gospel by insisting upon God’s sovereign will as determinative in human affairs is susceptible to the objection that there is ‘unfairness’ on God’s part.

Why does God blame people for their lack of response if it is determined by his will?

The apostle confronts this objection head-on.

He in no way resiles from what he has said; in fact, he emphasizes even more God’s right to carry out his will and purpose in this regard.

The objection of verse 19 flows out of the previous context and can be summarized as follows.

If God shows mercy and hardens whomever he wills regardless of human effort or choice, then how can he possibly assign blame to human beings for their choices and actions?2 God’s will determines whatever occurs, and thus he rather than human beings must be held responsible.

The formulation of the question suggests that the interpretation of verses 14–18 is on target, for the question would scarcely be raised this way if the previous verses taught that the ultimate factor in human destiny were human choice.

If human beings cannot ultimately resist God’s will, then how should we interpret Paul’s response to the complaint in verse 20?

I have already shown that he does not deny the premise: no one can ultimately resist God’s will.

What he denies is the conclusion: God therefore cannot find fault with human beings.

In other words, Paul believes that God is absolutely sovereign and determines all things and at the same time posits that human beings are responsible for their choices and actions.

We must observe that the objection doesn’t represent a humble attempt to puzzle out the relationship between divine sovereignty and human freedom.

The objection manifests a rebellious spirit that refuses to countenance a world in which God is absolutely sovereign and human beings are still responsible.

The opponents dig in their feet by insisting that if God decides whom to harden and to whom to give mercy, then it is nonsense to hold human beings responsible for their actions.

God’s sovereign right as the Creator to govern the world as he pleases is communicated through the illustration of the potter.

C. Dodd (1932: 159) complains that the illustration is defective, since human beings are not pots, but he fails to understand that the metaphor is not transferable in every respect.

Paul’s theology is probably best expressed in contemporary terms by compatibilism.

That is, human responsibility and freedom are subsumed under the umbrella of divine sovereignty.

No philosophical solution, however, answers every question.

Why do you make me this way?

What is wrong with this question?