As the results of the revelation of the perishing of Israel, according to the flesh, the Chosen Vessel, was driven to ask the question that humanity might pose thus: "Is there unrighteousness with God? (Rom.9:14) For in addition to the fact that Abraham had two sons, but only one will be saved. Paul also introduces another recondite mystery thus: "And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac... Rebecca had twins in her womb, and before they were born, she was told "the elder shall serve the younger, that is, the first born will serve the second born.
Then Paul wrapped the mystery in parentheses, and elucidated its meaning thus: (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that purpose of God according to election might stand, or be established, not of works, but of him that calls:). (Rom.9:10-11).
Note the phrase, "not of works." I remember Carl McNair giving a sermon, and in it he said, "God choose Jacob over Esau, because he saw that Jacob would be a better person than Esau." I wrote to him telling him that he was preaching salvation by works. He replied saying, "I stand by what I said." He didn't live much longer after that heretical nonsense. However, it is clear that God chooses his elect by grace, and not by works. For God said, "Jacob have I love, but Esau have I hated." That emphatic sentence led Paul to anticipate humanities' reaction to God's decision, by asking the question: "Is there unrighteousness with God" (Rom.9:14)?
Paul's immediate reply is, "God forbid." But to fully answer the question, Paul turns to the analogy of the potter. God is the master potter, and he has one lump of clay on the potter's wheel. From that lump of clay, he makes different vessels thus: "Have not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour (Rom,9:21)? For example, Jacob and Esau were of same lump. For they both came out of the loins of their father Isaac, They were both innocent of sin. Yet, God loved Jacob and hated Esau.
Therefore, the potter may make a beautiful vase, or a beautiful set of teacup and saucers. The vase to display beautiful flowers, and the teacups and saucers to entertain special guests.
But the potter also has a dog, that must be fed; and from the same lump of clay, he makes a bowl to feed the dog. It is obvious that the dog's bowl doesn't have the same honour as the vase, the teacups or the saucers. But the question is this: "shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, why have you made me thus"(Rom.9:20)? Can the dog's bowl, with justification, ask the potter that question? The answer is no, but why is the answer no?
That recondite, sublime mystery is wrapped in three fundamental concepts. One, the foreknowledge of God. Two, the doctrine of election and three, predestination. These fundamental concepts, which God purposed in himself, were given to him by the good pleasure of his counsel, which is immutable (Heb.6:18). Also, Isiah was inspired to write: "Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else like me., declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done. saying my counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure..."(Is. 46:9-10).
NB: I have asked the question before, who is God's counsellor?
To be continued
