The Most Hated Doctrine in Theology – Romans 9:6-24

 This is one of those scriptures which needs to be taught and re-taught; re-taught and re-taught. But it’s not because it is difficult to understand or interpret. All that it really needs is to be read with an open mind, because the words are not difficult. I’m not saying that the doctrine is simple, but that this scripture is simple enough. The problem is in the application and in giving to it the respect that it deserves. The implication of these words is so contrary to our sinful hearts that it needs to be re-read and reiterated from this day until that day when the mist is blown away and we can see the Lord in all His glory. Unfortunately, this chapter and next two may be the most neglected scriptures in all the New Testament.

What is being taught in these simple words has become the most hated doctrine in all Christian theology. And that is saying a lot, because there are a great many doctrines which are hated for various reasons. For example, there are millions of people headed towards Hell, who hate the subject for that very reason. There is the obvious doctrine that God exists, because many don’t want a god greater than themselves. And there are millions of people, even professing Christians, who don’t want to be taught the Biblical doctrines of holiness and holy living, because they instinctive know how unholy they are. There are thousands of clerics, priests and bishops who hate the doctrine of eternal security, because it releases people from their dictatorial grasp. There are hundreds of thousands of people who hate and scorn what we teach about the inspiration and preservation of the Word of God. There are lots of doctrines which are hated for various reasons. But out of them all, it appears to me that the most hated of all doctrines is God’s sovereign election.

Election is not actually my subject this morning, although I must define it once again. My theme is the hatred which people have towards it. Why is this important? Because hatred against this doctrine is an attack on the very nature and prerogative of God Himself. A denial of this doctrine is a denial of God’s authority. And a God without authority is no God at all.

Let’s begin with a re-reading and explanation of the scripture before us.Verse 6 – Despite the blessings that God has given to Israel, some might think that the promises of God have been somehow revoked, but that is not the case. The Lord’s Word hasn’t become useless or void. Because not everyone born into the nation of Israel, is a true Israelite according to God’s promise and will. Verse 7 – Abraham had 2 sons, but God decreed that only through Isaac would Abraham’s seed be called. There are children of the flesh, but these are not necessarily children of God, or children of God’s promise. And only the children of God’s promise are to be considered the true seed, the spiritual seed, of Abraham. Who made that choice? It wasn’t Abraham; it was Jehovah.

Verse 10 takes us to the next generation of Abraham’s family – Isaac and Rebecca. Isaac was 40-years-old when he got married, & you’d think that he would have started his family immediately. Perhaps that was his desire, but it was not to be; they were without children for a many years. But “Isaac intreated the LORD for his wife, because she was barren: and the LORD was intreated of him, and Rebekah his wife conceived.” While it is true for every couple, that “children are the heritage of the Lord,” in this case, that they had children at all, verged on the miraculous. So this couple had two children just as Abraham had, but this time they were born on the same day – twins. Verse 11 says that Jehovah chose to elect one of those boys even before they were born – “that the purpose of God according to election might stand.” Neither child had committed the smallest sin, nor had he performed the least act of righteousness. It is impossible to say that one was more worthy of God’s choice than the other. And yet God told their mother that the elder son would eventually serve the younger, which was contrary to the practice of the day. Furthermore He said, “Jacob (the younger) have I loved, but Esau have I hated.” The way in which the verse is written shows to us that God was not basing His choice, or His affection, on anything which He foresaw those boys do sometime after their births. God’s election of Jacob had nothing to do with his works or his faith – inside the womb or out.

Verse 14 – does this choice made by God, render Him unrighteous? If anyone thinks so, it proves that they have a corrupted definition of God’s righteousness. As the sovereign God, the Lord has every right to bestow mercy upon anyone that He chooses – elects. He may have compassion on one, but not another, and this in no way reflects upon God’s character. Because the facts are: there is not a person on earth who deserves divine compassion, and the nature of mercy suggests complete unworthiness on every recipient’s part. Verse 16 – So this mercy and compassion has nothing to do with the will or the works of either Jacob or Esau – you or me.

Verse 17 – in fact, God even elevated Pharaoh of the Exodus in order to show the Lord’s sovereign authority. He had mercy on whom He chose – elected – but in the case of Pharaoh, He hardened that man’s heart. Verse 19 – now you might say that this isn’t fair – Pharaoh shouldn’t be judged for what was God’s decree. But let’s not forget that neither you nor I, Pharaoh or Moses has any right to question the Almighty. “Why have you made me like this?” is not your question to ask. There is a sense in which, as created beings, we are like vases, vessels or flower pots. Has the vase or the flower pot the right to question the potter who made it? Only in our stupid liberal world would anyone even think the thought. And if God chooses to pour the oil of His Holy Spirit into one, but to let the other sit out empty and in the elements to self-destruct, that is the right of the Creator.

With verse 24 Paul moves forward in his subject to God’s right to elect Gentiles as well as Israelites. Just as God chose to save Jacob rather than Esau, He has chosen to save some Gentile Americans. We will deal with that subject in messages to come.

But now, I need to ask: Have I properly read, understood and explained this passage of scripture? Have I abused it in any way? Have I twisted it and contorted it in order to make it fit into fix the doctrine that you know that I hold? I realize that any paraphrase involves a bit of interpretation, but I’ve tried to keep it to minimum this morning. (Incidentally that is the problem with the modern translations of the Bible. As suggested in an article in last week’s bulletin, they are not so much word-by-word translations, but a thought for thought paraphrase – and that requires the interpretation of the “translator.” As that article said, verbal inspiration demands verbal translation in order to maintain the true message of God. Translators, under the direction of the Holy Spirit, should translate, and leave the reader, under the direction of the Holy Spirit, to interpret and apply.) Even though I have not tried to translate this scripture, have I been true to its meaning? If I didn’t think so, I should sit down and be quiet.

God, upon His own authority, first chose Isaac over Ishmael and then Jacob over Esau. The true children of Abraham came through those two men and not through the other men. That is what God decreed and declared. Furthermore, it can be said that between those four men, God saved only Isaac and Jacob. Ishmael and Esau went on their way – in their sins – in their prosperous fleshly lives – then they died unredeemed, without Christ; without a Saviour; aliens from the commonwealth of Israel. And the same thing has been taking place ever since: One child in a family is saved and redeemed, while another child goes on in his sin. This is what Paul is teaching in this scripture.

Why is this the most hated doctrine in Christian Theology?I begin with last week’s message: Because people tend to confuse privilege with reality. The Jews were descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and so they assumed that they were also children of God just those men were. Similarly, they had the common opinion that wealth was an indication of the blessing of God. When someone is living on easy street, in good health, and with their children around them, then there is proof that God is satisfied with their lives and souls. Assuming that someone goes to church periodically and has “the service of God” then obviously, he must be taken to Heaven when he dies. He might even believe that Christ has come in the flesh; he was born on December 25^th in the year 1. Remember – Ishmael and Esau were children of Abraham as well as Jacob and Isaac, but they were not children of God. They were prosperous in the things of the world, and they were taught the service of God, but neither of them were chosen by God. What? Not chosen by God, even though they possessed all those earthly blessings of God? How dare you say such things? I say these things because the Bible says these things. Furthermore, I can add, with the authority of God’s Word, that most of descendants of Israel are not spiritual descendants of Abraham. Privilege means nothing more than privilege, and privilege if not acted upon, means nothing. God decides who are His people and His vessels, and it has nothing to do with the number of earthly blessings or the privileges that people might claim.

Why is this the most hated of all doctrine? Because man wants works to be the basis of eternal blessing. Verse 11 – God chose Jacob over Esau before they were born, and He told their mother about His choice. He did so, because He wanted us all to know that God’s choice is made before works or sin come into play. “For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth.” Unfortunately for all of us, there is a pride and arrogance which comes automatically with our sin natures. That pride tends to make us think that we control our eternal destiny – through our deeds – good and bad. But this doctrine slices right through the idea that works of righteousness make us fit for God. And that slices right into our native, sinful pride. Most men hate this doctrine because of pride. Most men demand the personal right to control their eternal destiny, but God will not grant it.

Why is this the most hated of all doctrine? Because there are far more Esau’s in this world than Jacob’s. By the time that Isaac was born there were millions of people in the world, but only Isaac was called. By the time that Jacob was born there were millions more people just like Esau. Those people were not the elite that they pictured themselves to be – they were the rejected.

That God has the RIGHT to chose one man over another, is a most detestable doctrine to most people. The average man does not want God to exercise His authority as God. Yet those same people want the right to be able to choose one puppy over another to take home and love. And they want the right to decide who to marry and who to reject. When they see the panhandler at the corner begging for a dollar, they want the right either to give him some money or not to give him that money. But they refuse to permit the Creator to have the same right that they demand for themselves. It is one of the cornerstones of the American Republic to be able to have a free vote about his government. He demands the right to vote for a baby-killing liberal if he should choose to do so. And the person next to him demands the right to vote for someone else. And then, generally speaking, we move on with our lives after all the electing has been completed. But neither of those men will grant God the right to vote or elect people to become His eternal children.

It irks many of them to their very souls to have to admit that God hates anyone but the serial killer or rapist. And if some of those people want to change the people whom God can hate they want that right, but they will not grant God Himself that right. To avoid the statement of verse 13 that God hated Esau, many say that this is a “comparative hatred.” They point to Bible verses like Luke 14:26 – “If any man come to me, & hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.” They point to John 12:25 – “He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.” They say, “This only means that God didn’t love Esau as much as He did Jacob.” But even if we grant that point, it still declares that Esau was not a spiritual descendant of Abraham. This quotation to which Paul refers comes from the first verses of the Book of Malachi – The burden of the word of the LORD to Israel by Malachi. I have loved you, saith the LORD. Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? (Answer) Was not Esau Jacob’s brother? saith the LORD: yet I loved Jacob, And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness. Whereas Edom saith, We are impoverished, but we will return and build the desolate places; thus saith the LORD of hosts, They shall build, but I will throw down; and they shall call them, The border of wickedness, and, The people against whom the LORD hath indignation for ever.” Does Malachi even hint that God is saying only that God loved Esau a little less than He did Jacob? No!

Men hate this doctrine – oops, should I even use that term after that last point? As those same people use it, doesn’t it mean that they don’t love sovereign election like they should? Men hate this doctrine because they want the right to define “righteousness” any way they choose. “What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.” The fact that someone might accuse God of unrighteousness, proves that he understood Paul. “God hated Esau – but that would be unrighteous – if true.” Paul replies – “He is unrighteous only in your sin-corrupted definition.” “Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God?” – Verse 20. God is perfectly just and righteous in saving whom He chooses, and permitting the rest to go on to the doom which their sins demand.

This is the most hated of all doctrines, because man wants the RIGHT to demand mercy. If the idea of demanding mercy wasn’t ludicrous in itself, God has said,“I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.” People seem to think that they have every right to expect God’s compassion, but such is not the case. A few acts of generosity, kindness and even self-defined righteousness, cannot undo the inbred wickedness of the human heart, and God hates that wickedness. This is a hated doctrine because the natural man thinks that he has a free will. The average person thinks that he can believe, repent, run, do and worship as he pleases. Even if this was granted, the Bible declares that salvation is “not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.”

This thought brings us to what is perhaps the real crux of the matter. Man does have a free will – but not the variety that is found in the theology of the average person. When Adam sinned against God, his spirit died, and he became a slave to his sinful flesh. Now he is absolutely free to do those things which he can do under those conditions and in the power left to him. Unfortunately that is very, very little. About all that the natural man can freely do is commit more sin. He certainly cannot please God – Romans 8:8. And Romans 3 says, “There is NONE that understandeth, there is NONE that seeketh after God. They are ALL gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is NONE that doeth good, no, not one.” The only free will that the sinner has is the will to commit more sin.

And not only that, but as a sinner, Adam and every one of his descendants, including Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, deserve to die the second death and spend eternity in judgment. God in no way harms Esau or Ishmael by not choosing to give them spiritual blessings. Neither of them were seeking God, and they were perfectly happy with the general direction of their lives. They weren’t pleading with their fathers or their brothers to teach them about the grace of God. Furthermore, Isaac and Jacob were no more worthy of God’s election than their brothers were. But God was gracious, very gracious, in saving a handful of the millions of sinners on earth in that day. God was merciful to a few, but in the process He was not unrighteous toward those upon whom He didn’t shower His mercy.

What does this mean?The point to which Paul will come just a bit later is that God saves the people whom He chooses. Not only were not all the descendants of Israel true descendants of Israel. Not only were not all the children of Abraham to be considered the seed of Israel. But there are others, who are not in any way related to the blood of Abraham or Jacob, whom God is choosing to save and actually redeeming and justifying.

And the application is this: there is nothing which forbids YOU from assuming that you are one of those elect. There is no blood-line, name-line, blood-line or bottom-line which says that you CANNOT be saved. The test of your election is whether or not you will repent of your sin, trust the Lord Jesus Christ to save you, and permit Jehovah to be God towards you. If you would like to love the Lord, serve the Lord and fellowship with the Lord for all eternity, then humble yourself as a sinner before God, and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ to deliver your sinful soul from the judgment that it deserves. Acknowledge that you cannot save yourself and that you have no right to save yourself, and then trust the Lord to do what you cannot do yourself.

Will you come to Christ in repentance and faith this morning?